From: "Michael"
Alright.
The original problem: I have a repo forked from someone else's repo. I
am taking over maintenance and possible enhancements.
That's two distinct tasks (maintenance vs enhancements). Be prepared for
differing approaches for each.
Also how will folks know to change
Alright.
The original problem: I have a repo forked from someone else's repo. I am
taking over maintenance and possible enhancements.
As part of this, and following good coding practice, I have made branches for
the various things that I have been doing.
I have also made updates to master to b
From: "Michael" : Saturday, September 12, 2015
12:31 AM
On 2015-09-11, at 12:43 AM, Philip Oakley wrote:
From: "Philip Oakley"
From: "Michael"
I don't understand this last statement. Perhaps a graph showing
the arrangement may help de-confuse which are 'off of' and which
are 'on to'.
Sur
On 2015-09-11, at 12:43 AM, Philip Oakley wrote:
> From: "Philip Oakley"
>> From: "Michael"
I don't understand this last statement. Perhaps a graph showing the
arrangement may help de-confuse which are 'off of' and which are 'on to'.
>>>
>>> Sure; how to generate that graph?
>
> Y
From: "Philip Oakley"
From: "Michael"
I don't understand this last statement. Perhaps a graph showing the
arrangement may help de-confuse which are 'off of' and which are 'on
to'.
Sure; how to generate that graph?
I just use plain text, left to right, A B C for commits, - / \ for the
li
From: "Michael"
I don't understand this last statement. Perhaps a graph showing the
arrangement may help de-confuse which are 'off of' and which are 'on
to'.
Sure; how to generate that graph?
I just use plain text, left to right, A B C for commits, - / \ for the
links.
oldest to the left,
>
> I don't understand this last statement. Perhaps a graph showing the
> arrangement may help de-confuse which are 'off of' and which are 'on to'.
Sure; how to generate that graph?
---
Entertaining minecraft videos
http://YouTube.com/keybounce
--
You received this message because you are sub
From: "Michael"
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 1:40 AM
[This is possibly a bit late now..]
On 2015-09-05, at 5:27 PM, Michael wrote:
Ok, first question: Why does
git rebase --onto HEAD RemoveDebugSpam
not work? It results in no change -- it does not move
"RemoveDebugSpam" to the curren
On 2015-09-05, at 5:27 PM, Michael wrote:
> Ok, first question: Why does
> git rebase --onto HEAD RemoveDebugSpam
>
> not work? It results in no change -- it does not move "RemoveDebugSpam" to
> the current HEAD (on a newly checked out test branch)
Even stranger: I attempted "git rebase -i -
Ok, first question: Why does
git rebase --onto HEAD RemoveDebugSpam
not work? It results in no change -- it does not move "RemoveDebugSpam" to the
current HEAD (on a newly checked out test branch)
keybounceMBP:Finite-Fluids michael$ git status
On branch RebaseSimpleMerge
nothing to commit, work
From: "Michael"
I am trying to understand git rebase.
You have my sympathy. It can be confusing, especially because it's
syntax and options are backward compatible with the original usage which
pre-dates the use of formal "remotes". That said, there are now many
options that avoid the need
I am trying to understand git rebase.
I am completely confused by the manual page. It starts by saying that there has
to be a valid upstream or it aborts, yet none of the examples even describes
how upstream affects anything. That's my first point of confusion.
I don't understand the difference
12 matches
Mail list logo
