On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:13:51PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:23:09PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Reverts can
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:42:12PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > git revert -n deadbeef
> > git commit --squash deadbeef
> >
> > where "deadbeef" is the placeholder for the actual commit to revert.
> >
> > And indeed, I use
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:13:51PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:23:09PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Reverts can
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> git revert -n deadbeef
> git commit --squash deadbeef
>
> where "deadbeef" is the placeholder for the actual commit to revert.
>
> And indeed, I use exactly this song and dance quite frequently, *iff* my
> intention is to drop
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> Doing this automatically for all users might be a bit too drastic for
> the upstream git. So there could be an option, or something - if
> there's interest I can add that. I thought I'd test the waters before
> I spend time on that.
If the goal
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:23:09PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > Reverts can typically be treated like squash. Eliminating both the
> > > original commit and the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:23:09PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > Reverts can typically be treated like squash. Eliminating both the
> > original commit and the revert would be even nicer, but this seems a bit
> > harder to
Hi,
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Reverts can typically be treated like squash. Eliminating both the
> original commit and the revert would be even nicer, but this seems a bit
> harder to implement.
Whoa. This rings a lot of alarm bells, very loudly. It seems you intend to
Reverts can typically be treated like squash. Eliminating both the
original commit and the revert would be even nicer, but this seems a bit
harder to implement.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1
Reverts can typically be treated like squash. Eliminating both the
original commit and the revert would be even nicer, but this seems a bit
harder to implement.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1
10 matches
Mail list logo