On 1/17/20 9:22 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Joel Brobecker wrote:
The main goal of the limit is really to avoid accidents where someone
pushes something he shouldn't or something he didn't realize would
push so many commits. If the GCC repository is such that merges of
100
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
> We also make sure (?) to not make them show up in bugzilla, right?
That's already done; the email-to-bugzilla-filtered script only passes
commits to master and release branches (i.e., pushes that update those
refs) to Bugzilla.
--
Joseph S. Myers
On January 17, 2020 3:22:11 PM GMT+01:00, Joseph Myers
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>
>> The main goal of the limit is really to avoid accidents where someone
>> pushes something he shouldn't or something he didn't realize would
>> push so many commits. If the GCC
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> The main goal of the limit is really to avoid accidents where someone
> pushes something he shouldn't or something he didn't realize would
> push so many commits. If the GCC repository is such that merges of
> 100 commits or more is going to be, if not
Hi Ian,
> As I noted, 100 commits to master is a small number, so I expect this problem
> to fire almost every time someone does a merge of master to a devel or user
> branch (unless they have the habit of doing that almost daily, which I doubt
> for
> most).
The main goal of the limit is really
Hi Folks,
Joel Brobecker wrote:
You should include Joel on such questions as the expert on the hooks.
I don't know whether there's something to put in the commit message to say
"allow this merge of more than 100 commits". I don't think a squashed
merge is the right workaround, supposing
Hello,
> You should include Joel on such questions as the expert on the hooks.
>
> I don't know whether there's something to put in the commit message to say
> "allow this merge of more than 100 commits". I don't think a squashed
> merge is the right workaround, supposing you do want the git
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> So I know that the policy is under review (and agree, from my PoV, that
> something that represents these in a similar way to the SVN single mail
> containing all the changes is probably optimum).
>
> However, right now I’m stuck - and really want to get
