Hey all,
it seems like the branch for maintenance work on OGM 4.1 is (still)
called "master", while a branch "4.2" was created for future work.
I'd really prefer it the other way around: create a branch "4.1" to
host all changes which are needed to be backported on 4.1.x , and call
"master" what w
Hi Marc,
those issues are certainly on the radar.
Sorry we didn't work on them yet, as we're doing a big sprint on OGM
currently. We'll be back on Search in a couple of weeks - I might try
to give it a look before that as it seems important but I can't
promise it.
I don't actually remember you sh
We did it intentionally that way to avoid any kind of back/forward porting
and keep the history linear.
It's not that these branches are there for a long time, probably only until
tomorrow. 4.2 is meant to be rebased onto master and finally fast-forward
merged to master once 4.1.2 is out. Would be
So you intend to do some evil history rewriting on branch 4.2? I don't
think that's expected to happen on the reference repository.
I haven't understood much of it so I'll send PRs to master and let you
merge them wherever you want. Pretty sure I don't want to touch branch
4.2 myself.
On 26 Febru
2015-02-26 16:38 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero :
> So you intend to do some evil history rewriting on branch 4.2? I don't
> think that's expected to happen on the reference repository.
>
I don't see a problem with rewriting in this case. It's not master and it's
not there for a long time. It's just a
On 26 February 2015 at 15:44, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> 2015-02-26 16:38 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero :
>>
>> So you intend to do some evil history rewriting on branch 4.2? I don't
>> think that's expected to happen on the reference repository.
>
>
> I don't see a problem with rewriting in this case. I
2015-02-26 18:47 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero :
> On 26 February 2015 at 15:44, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> > 2015-02-26 16:38 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero :
> >>
> >> So you intend to do some evil history rewriting on branch 4.2? I don't
> >> think that's expected to happen on the reference repository.
>
On 26 February 2015 at 18:11, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> 2015-02-26 18:47 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero :
>>
>> On 26 February 2015 at 15:44, Gunnar Morling wrote:
>> > 2015-02-26 16:38 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero :
>> >>
>> >> So you intend to do some evil history rewriting on branch 4.2? I don't
>> >> t
2015-02-26 19:27 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero :
> On 26 February 2015 at 18:11, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> > 2015-02-26 18:47 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero :
> >>
> >> On 26 February 2015 at 15:44, Gunnar Morling
> wrote:
> >> > 2015-02-26 16:38 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero :
> >> >>
> >> >> So you intend to
> But I didn't say it's a big problem. It's unexpected though, and I
> think we had agreed that nobody would ever use push --force on the
> reference repository, especially not as a standard development
> procedure.
No-one should ever make a rule absolute *ever*?
See my point? :)
We are just min
10 matches
Mail list logo