I think that I have not properly communicated what we are doing and why we
are asking for this thing that seems irrational.
Before trying to do that, let me respond to a few other things.
If you had a pre-merge hook, then it would run even on local merges between
> branches.
>
This is where a
On 2018-09-28, at 12:03 PM, B. Lachele Foley wrote:
> We talked about this at group meeting this morning. We had just been
> discussing a realization similar to Michael Gersten's observation about
> needing a "special merge" when we saw his post come in. Moments before that
> we had
We talked about this at group meeting this morning. We had just been
discussing a realization similar to Michael Gersten's observation about
needing a "special merge" when we saw his post come in. Moments before
that we had decided that we probably do want it to be a pre-fetch hook.
That
On 2018-09-27, at 5:06 PM, B. Lachele Foley wrote:
> I knew that a git-pull is a fetch followed by a merge. But, I had not seen
> arguments for always splitting the process up. For newbies, I always
> considered 'git pull' to be simpler when getting them up to speed. In this
> case, you
Thank you for your quick and thoughtful reply!
I knew that a git-pull is a fetch followed by a merge. But, I had not seen
arguments for always splitting the process up. For newbies, I always
considered 'git pull' to be simpler when getting them up to speed. In this
case, you are certainly
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:52:48AM -0700, B. Lachele Foley wrote:
> Our group could really use a pre-pull hook. Is there already a way to do
> this? I wrote a little wrapper script in bash for it, but that's not ideal.
>
> Here is our use case:
>
> The code in our repo is coupled to a
Our group could really use a pre-pull hook. Is there already a way to do
this? I wrote a little wrapper script in bash for it, but that's not ideal.
Here is our use case:
The code in our repo is coupled to a database. We have made it so that all
the parts of the database that are controlled
