--- On Fri, 10/14/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
...
A branch would save us from having say... 1000 commits
with header changes in the history.
Apache uses version control as the canonical record. It's
therefore essential to know why a header was changed and
by whom.
And of course
On 10/14/2011 8:58 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- On Fri, 10/14/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
...
A branch would save us from having say... 1000 commits
with header changes in the history.
Apache uses version control as the canonical record. It's
therefore essential to know why a header was
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hi;
Looking at how big, and mostly cosmetic but necessary, a
change it will be to bring in all the SGA license changes,
and given that it requires manual intervention and is not
something that can be done in one huge mega
--- On Thu, 10/13/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
I recommend separating review from (automated) execution.
If this is done, a branch shouldn't be necessary...
Uhm.. can you elaborate a bit more?
A branch would save us from having say... 1000 commits with
header changes in the history.
Hi;
Looking at how big, and mostly cosmetic but necessary, a
change it will be to bring in all the SGA license changes,
and given that it requires manual intervention and is not
something that can be done in one huge mega commit ...
I think we should create a branch for this changes in merge
