Thanks Andrew for the proposal! I think a more flexible git workflow will
be very helpful in feature branch development.
I just had an offline discussion with Walter Su, and it happens to be very
relevant to Ravi's question. At least for the EC branch, we find it
problematic to use only 1 approach
Hi Ravi,
Thanks for reviewing. I think the choice between merge and rebase is very
situational, so I don't want to be too prescriptive in the text we're
voting on. On the wiki page or docs, I'll include more discussion about
when one or the other might be preferred.
Responses have been positive t
Thanks for the work Andrew! Should we specify a "preference" for one workflow
over another? If not, this looks good.
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 12:04 PM, Colin McCabe
wrote:
+1. Rebasing can really make the history much clearer when used correctly.
Colin
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015
+1. Rebasing can really make the history much clearer when used correctly.
Colin
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Wang wrote:
> Hi common-dev,
>
> Based on the prior [DISCUSS] thread, I've put together a new [VOTE]
> proposal which modifies the branch development practices edified by the
LGTM. This all needs to go into the hadoop docs somewhere too, if/when the vote
completes
> On 18 Aug 2015, at 14:57, Andrew Wang wrote:
>
> Hi common-dev,
>
> Based on the prior [DISCUSS] thread, I've put together a new [VOTE]
> proposal which modifies the branch development practices edified
Hi common-dev,
Based on the prior [DISCUSS] thread, I've put together a new [VOTE]
proposal which modifies the branch development practices edified by the
[VOTE] when we switched from SVN to git [1]. This new proposal modifies the
third and fourth points of the earlier [VOTE], copied here for your
