David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Let's take the "David, I tested dev/staging at commit 43214314xxxxxx, > and it's fine" mail scenario. > > What I would do then is > git push origin 43214314xxxxxx:refs/heads/dev/staging > > and see whether it fails. _That_ is something you can equally well. > The difference may just be that I check and mail you back telling you > "Uh, Graham? dev/staging has no commit 43214314xxxxxx. What have you > been testing?" because either you or your tools tried to do more work > than they should, and arrived at something they _could_, but likely > _should not_ push.
P.S.: of course, I have mostly myself to blame, because any such "more work than they should" is likely lifted straight out of a mail with instructions from me. I either had not realized they were going to become part of an automated process, or I had not realized that it was a bad idea to make this kind of rebase part of an automated process. Because it required decisions better made manually, and if someone made those decisions and checked the results into dev/staging, the automated process would be perfectly able to resume. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
