Junio C Hamano writes:
> Is everybody happy with this version?
I am.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo
On 13-11-11 12:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Is everybody happy with this version?
Looks good.
M.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-i
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Is everybody happy with this version?
Looks good to me.
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Marc Branchaud writes:
>> - "In Git 2.0 the new push.default of 'simple' will push only the
>> current\n"
>> - "branch to the same remote branch used by git pull. A push will\n"
>> - "only succeed if the remote and local branches have the same name.\n"
>> + "In Git 2.0, Git will defaul
On 13-11-08 01:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Matthieu Moy writes:
>
>> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>>
>>> When push.default is set to 'matching', git will push local branches
>>> to remote branches that already exist with the same (matching) name.
>>
>> Yes, that's better than the original
Junio C Hamano writes:
> OK, I'll tentatively update the draft to read like this, redo the
> endgame patch on top and requeue.
... and the corresponding part of the endgame patch now reads like
this. I suspect that we may want a bigger change to unstress
'simple' at that phase of the transition
Matthieu Moy writes:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
>> When push.default is set to 'matching', git will push local branches
>> to remote branches that already exist with the same (matching) name.
>
> Yes, that's better than the original patch (and remains two lines).
> ...
>
>> In Gi
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Actually, to me, I found the "two sentences" the worst part in the
> original. It made it sound as if the default will be switching to
> 'upstream', and all readers need to read the second sentence that
> clarifies that it is not the case, in a somewhat round-about
> way
Matthieu Moy writes:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
>> When push.default is set to 'matching', git will push local branches
>> to remote branches that already exist with the same (matching) name.
>
> Yes, that's better than the original patch (and remains two lines).
>
>> + "In Git
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> When push.default is set to 'matching', git will push local branches
> to remote branches that already exist with the same (matching) name.
Yes, that's better than the original patch (and remains two lines).
> + "In Git 2.0 the new push.default of 'si
Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>> Specifically:
>>
+ "When push.default is set to 'matching', git will push all local
branches\n"
+ "to the remote branches with the same (matching) name.
>>
>> invites those who do not read documentation to mistake it with using
>
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Also applying this will have an unpleasant fallout to merging the
> endgame patch b2ed944a (push: switch default from "matching" to
> "simple", 2013-01-04). The added text needs to be corrected with an
> evil merge.
>
> I'd prefer to having worry about such a fallout onl
Junio C Hamano writes:
> That is true, but does it justify giving a misleading information in
> the advice message?
Clearly, yes. Trying to be exhaustive here is not a good idea, we'd end
up rewritting the man page, and then users won't read the message
because it's too long.
> Specifically:
>
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Matthieu Moy writes:
>
>> I don't remember all the discussions on the patch which introduced
>> the warning, but I don't think it's relevant to digg them before applying
>> the patch:
>
> If we apply the patch then it is too late to dig them ;-)
>
>> * The assumption wa
Matthieu Moy writes:
> I don't remember all the discussions on the patch which introduced
> the warning, but I don't think it's relevant to digg them before applying the
> patch:
If we apply the patch then it is too late to dig them ;-)
> * The assumption was that users would read the docs, bu
- Original Message -
> Greg Jacobson writes:
>
> > Is there anything I could do to improve this patch? Thank you.
>
> My vague recollection is that we started from an excerpt from the
> documentation page, not unlike this patch attempts to, but because
> such an excerpt has to be less c
- Original Message -
> Greg Jacobson writes:
>
> > Is there anything I could do to improve this patch? Thank you.
>
> My vague recollection is that we started from an excerpt from the
> documentation page, not unlike this patch attempts to, but because
> such an excerpt has to be less c
Greg Jacobson writes:
> Is there anything I could do to improve this patch? Thank you.
My vague recollection is that we started from an excerpt from the
documentation page, not unlike this patch attempts to, but because
such an excerpt has to be less complete than the documentation for
brevity'
Is there anything I could do to improve this patch? Thank you.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Greg Jacobson wrote:
> When the unset push.default warning message is displayed
> this may be the first time many users encounter push.default.
> Modified the warning message to explain in a compact
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
