On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 at 23:13:07 +0100, Tamas TEVESZ wrote: > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: > > > > whatever you see fit, though i'm not sure this doesn't count as > > > "falsifying history" :)) > > > > But #next is not supposed to have a history (it is supposed to > > be rebased). The purpose of #next is to try to avoid that mistakes > > or omissions propagate to the "stable" branch #master. > > > > Of course, that is only avoidable in a reasonable amount of time (~10 days > > at most), like in this case. But if I notice that some patch can > > be cleaner before it hits #master, I think it is worth to fix it up. > > do that, then. i don't care, really. i know squat about git, or how to > do proper workflow with it. > > whatever you see fit ;)
Yeah, that is really a minor detail. But thanks anyway! -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
