Am 05.03.2012 00:13, schrieb Matthew Brush:
On 12-03-04 01:29 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:01:27 -0800
Matthew Brushmbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 12-03-04 07:07 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 04/03/2012 09:28, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 03:40:29 +0100
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 03:40:29 +0100
Colomban Wendling lists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
IMO we should not record merges when there is only one single commit
or when the commits are unrelated (though the latter should probably
be less common) and rather rebase or cherry-pick the commits.
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:57:34 -0800
Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 12-03-03 06:28 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 04/03/2012 02:01, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:33, Matthew
Brushmbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 12-02-26 11:20 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Hi
On 12-03-04 07:07 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 04/03/2012 09:28, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 03:40:29 +0100
Colomban Wendlinglists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
IMO we should not record merges when there is only one single commit
or when the commits are unrelated (though the
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:01:27 -0800
Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 12-03-04 07:07 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 04/03/2012 09:28, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 03:40:29 +0100
Colomban Wendlinglists@herbesfolles.org wrote:
IMO we should not record merges
On 12-03-04 01:29 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:01:27 -0800
Matthew Brushmbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 12-03-04 07:07 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 04/03/2012 09:28, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 03:40:29 +0100
Colomban Wendlinglists@herbesfolles.org
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:33, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 12-02-26 11:20 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Hi folks,
Just something I thought on last merges based on Jiri's patches. Its
hard to understand what this merges do just by reading the commit
message. Given, that we want to
Le 04/03/2012 02:01, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:33, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 12-02-26 11:20 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Hi folks,
Just something I thought on last merges based on Jiri's patches. Its
hard to understand what this merges do just by reading
Le 28/02/2012 06:59, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
Am 27.02.2012 08:44, schrieb Lex Trotman:
[...]
I guess if we can filter out merge commits and only show the real commit
information it should be good?
(See other message with individual commit messages)
Yeah, IMO git gives us lots of un-needed
Am 27.02.2012 08:44, schrieb Lex Trotman:
[...]
I guess if we can filter out merge commits and only show the real commit
information it should be good?
(See other message with individual commit messages)
Yeah, IMO git gives us lots of un-needed merge messages, not much more
we can really say
Am 27.02.2012 08:44, schrieb Lex Trotman:
[...]
I guess if we can filter out merge commits and only show the real commit
information it should be good?
(See other message with individual commit messages)
Yeah, IMO git gives us lots of un-needed merge messages, not much more
we can really
On 12-02-26 11:20 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Hi folks,
Just something I thought on last merges based on Jiri's patches. Its
hard to understand what this merges do just by reading the commit
message. Given, that we want to create the ChangeLog based on git log it
will be nearly impossible to create
On 12-02-26 11:20 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Hi folks,
Just something I thought on last merges based on Jiri's patches. Its
hard to understand what this merges do just by reading the commit
message. Given, that we want to create the ChangeLog based on git log it
will be nearly impossible to create
[...]
I guess if we can filter out merge commits and only show the real commit
information it should be good?
(See other message with individual commit messages)
Yeah, IMO git gives us lots of un-needed merge messages, not much more
we can really say other than merged master into branch, so
14 matches
Mail list logo
