Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Right now I do this just by being careful, but if there was an
automatic safety mechanism, it would save me a bit of work, since
otherwise I might not catch my mistake until I do the git push
publish, at which point I curse and then start consulting the reflog
to back the
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:22:50PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Right now I do this just by being careful, but if there was an
automatic safety mechanism, it would save me a bit of work, since
otherwise I might not catch my mistake until I do the git push
Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu writes:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:55:00AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
But in a triangular workflow, the way to make the result reach the
upstream is *not* by pushing there yourself. For developers at
the leaf level, it is to push to their own repository (often
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Spekaing of which, what I'd really appreciate is timestamps associated
with the reflog. That's because the most common time when I've
screwed something up is after doing a git rebase -i and so the
reflog has a *huge* number of entries on it, and figuring out which
entry
Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu writes:
Spekaing of which, what I'd really appreciate is timestamps associated
with the reflog. That's because the most common time when I've
screwed something up is after doing a git rebase -i and so the
reflog has a *huge* number of entries on it, and figuring
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:01:36PM +0200, Per Cederqvist wrote:
When the option is true (the default), Guilt does not create a new Git
branch when patches are applied. This way, you can switch between
Guilt 0.35 and the current version of Guilt with no issues.
At a future time, maybe a year
I just had another idea (although I haven't had a chance to code up
anything yet). Perhaps instead of, or in addition to, a global
setting (i.e., guilt.reusebranch), perhaps we should have a per-branch
setting, such as branch.branch.guiltReuseBranch?
I was actually thinking that it might be
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:45:31AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I just had another idea (although I haven't had a chance to code up
anything yet). Perhaps instead of, or in addition to, a global
setting (i.e., guilt.reusebranch), perhaps we should have a per-branch
setting, such as
Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu writes:
I was actually thinking that it might be interesting to have a
branch.branch.rewindable, which would change the guilt defaults, and
could also key changes in key git behavior which makes it less likely
that a user shoots him or herself in the foot --- i.e.,
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:58:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu writes:
I was actually thinking that it might be interesting to have a
branch.branch.rewindable, which would change the guilt defaults, and
could also key changes in key git behavior which makes it
Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu writes:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:58:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu writes:
I was actually thinking that it might be interesting to have a
branch.branch.rewindable, which would change the guilt defaults, and
could also key
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:55:00AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
But in a triangular workflow, the way to make the result reach the
upstream is *not* by pushing there yourself. For developers at
the leaf level, it is to push to their own repository (often on
GitHub), which is different from
12 matches
Mail list logo