On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:46:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
with differing hashes), this has the potential of causing confusion
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:05:35 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:46:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:46:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
with differing hashes), this has the potential of causing confusion
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:05:35 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
I thought about this a bit more, and I agree that at least the release
candidates (basically anything tagged on branch release) ought to be
merged back to master. Since any series of bugfix patches seems to be
cause for
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:52:48 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
Doesn't everything need to be merged into master eventually anyway? It
seems to me that unless it's a change that very narrowly targeting an
issue in a release branch that is not an issue in master,
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
with differing hashes), this has the potential of causing confusion
and/or quite some extra work when debugging using git-bisect(1), so
I'd like
