On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 12:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Dirk Hohndel d...@hohndel.org wrote:
It's just that I don't know how else to do it and keep the branches
reasonably useful.
So I guess the current model *works*, it just causes nasty
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Dirk Hohndel d...@hohndel.org wrote:
It's just that I don't know how else to do it and keep the branches
reasonably useful.
So I guess the current model *works*, it just causes nasty problems
occasionally.
The best model is likely one where you have two
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 03:51:39PM +0200, Henrik Brautaset Aronsen wrote:
On 12 Jul 2015, at 15:45, Dirk Hohndel d...@hohndel.org wrote:
Why would you need -rebase for the libgit2 repository, unless you have
local changes (and I just realize that I need to patch the build script to
From: Henrik Brautaset Aronsen subsurf...@henrik.synth.no
Without rebase, the build script would stop because it
couldn't complete a merge.
---
scripts/build.sh | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/build.sh b/scripts/build.sh
index 7b54bea..cb9b4ad
On 12 Jul 2015, at 15:45, Dirk Hohndel d...@hohndel.org wrote:
Why would you need -rebase for the libgit2 repository, unless you have
local changes (and I just realize that I need to patch the build script to
use a later commit there, anyway, as that one still doesn't work with
proxies).
Henrik,
I'll admit that I think of the build script more as a get started, have
all the pieces in place kinda thing. And then assume that people will
simply update the different packages as needed (which in most cases means
not very often).
Why would you need -rebase for the libgit2 repository,
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Dirk Hohndel d...@hohndel.org wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, Henrik. I read a bit through the git-rebase
manpage and that has not necessarily completely enlightened me on the
wisdom of this changes.
I suspect it ends up working better in practice, although
