Of course it can deal with this: "Squash and merge" just takes the diff
between the master and the branch merged with master, and applies it as a
fresh patch on master (borrowing author and timestamp). Think `git merge
--squash` more than the squash feature of `git rebase --interactive`.
On 18 Nov
Can the squash and merge button of github actually deal with this? It's not
obvious to me that it is even possible.
G
Sent from my phone. Please forgive brevity and mis spelling
On Nov 17, 2016, 21:02, at 21:02, Andreas Mueller wrote:
>Hi all.
>
>I think we should change our development pra
Hi all.
I think we should change our development practices for resolving
merge-conflicts from rebasing to merging.
The "squash and merge" button of github gets rid of any merge commits
and results in a clean history in any case.
The benefit of merging instead of rebasing is that github is abl
One problem with the PCA approach is also that it doesn’t tell you how
“discriminative” these features are in a >2 dimensional space, e.g., by a
nonlinear model. Or in other words, I think it is hard to tell whether the
class imbalance is a big problem in this task just from looking at a linear
The problem with your analysis is it doesn’t include anything but features. You
may want to look at Nina Zumel and John Mount’s work on y-aware PCR and PCA, as
well as y-aware feature scaling.
http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2016/05/pcr_part1_xonly/
http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2016/05/pcr_par
