On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:24 PM Roman Gilg wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:12 PM Ben Cooksley wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, 05:17 Johan Ouwerkerk, wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> >
> > It was complexity of that degree that I was primarily concerned about when
> > people started pushing for
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:12 PM Ben Cooksley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, 05:17 Johan Ouwerkerk, wrote:
>> [...]
>
>
> It was complexity of that degree that I was primarily concerned about when
> people started pushing for being able to force push and use a rebase workflow.
>
> For a first
El dimarts, 15 d’octubre de 2019, a les 9:16:48 CEST, Frederik Schwarzer va
escriure:
>
> Am 14.10.2019 22:51 schrieb Johan Ouwerkerk:
> > On 14.10.2019 21:22, Frederik Schwarzer wrote:
> >> If however, master had seen commits as well, fast-forwarding is
> >> performing a rebase ... is that
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, 05:17 Johan Ouwerkerk, wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:17 AM Frederik Schwarzer
> wrote:
> > Now I will fix my latest revision and merge to master. Still: 19 commits
> > are not compiling anymore.
> >
> > Or am I missing something here?
> >
> > How would we deal with
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:17 AM Frederik Schwarzer wrote:
> Now I will fix my latest revision and merge to master. Still: 19 commits
> are not compiling anymore.
>
> Or am I missing something here?
>
> How would we deal with that? Is "short-lived branches" (as you stated
> below) enough to reduce
On Вт, окт 15, 2019 at 09:16, Frederik Schwarzer
wrote:
Am 14.10.2019 22:51 schrieb Johan Ouwerkerk:
On 14.10.2019 21:22, Frederik Schwarzer wrote:
If however, master had seen commits as well, fast-forwarding is
performing a rebase ... is that correct?
The workflow would be: whenever
Am 14.10.2019 22:51 schrieb Johan Ouwerkerk:
On 14.10.2019 21:22, Frederik Schwarzer wrote:
If however, master had seen commits as well, fast-forwarding is
performing a rebase ... is that correct?
The workflow would be: whenever master is updated, you rebase your
local feature/work branch
On 14.10.2019 21:22, Frederik Schwarzer wrote:
> If however, master had seen commits as well, fast-forwarding is
> performing a rebase ... is that correct?
The workflow would be: whenever master is updated, you rebase your
local feature/work branch and force-push to the remote copy of the
On 14.10.2019 21:22, Frederik Schwarzer wrote:
Hi,
just asking in case I didn't get it.
I branch off of master and do a few commits in that new branch.
If I now merge the branch back to master and master had not seen any
commits in between, it's just relocating the master "tag" and all is
Hi,
just asking in case I didn't get it.
I branch off of master and do a few commits in that new branch.
If I now merge the branch back to master and master had not seen any
commits in between, it's just relocating the master "tag" and all is fine.
If however, master had seen commits as
Yes, please, pretty please with cherry on top. :)
Regards,
-Johan
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:57 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>
> I find the merge behavior to be not what we've been doing in phabricator so
> given the idea is to maintain our workflows i'd appreciate if we can agree on
>
On zondag 13 oktober 2019 22:57:20 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> I find the merge behavior to be not what we've been doing in phabricator so
> given the idea is to maintain our workflows i'd appreciate if we can agree on
> continue doing the same.
>
>
On Пн, окт 14, 2019 at 02:42, Aleix Pol wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:57 PM Albert Astals Cid
wrote:
I find the merge behavior to be not what we've been doing in
phabricator so given the idea is to maintain our workflows i'd
appreciate if we can agree on continue doing the same.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:57 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>
> I find the merge behavior to be not what we've been doing in phabricator so
> given the idea is to maintain our workflows i'd appreciate if we can agree on
> continue doing the same.
>
>
+ 1 Commit with the name "Merge branch 'branch-name' into 'master' are not
helpful.
Cheers,
Carl
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 10:57:20 PM CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> I find the merge behavior to be not what we've been doing in phabricator so
> given the idea is to maintain our workflows i'd
+1
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, 22:58 Albert Astals Cid, wrote:
> I find the merge behavior to be not what we've been doing in phabricator
> so given the idea is to maintain our workflows i'd appreciate if we can
> agree on continue doing the same.
>
>
>
I find the merge behavior to be not what we've been doing in phabricator so
given the idea is to maintain our workflows i'd appreciate if we can agree on
continue doing the same.
https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/merge_requests/fast_forward_merge.html
Opinions?
Cheers,
Albert
17 matches
Mail list logo
