> and after a while in a generalized abuse of git commit -n
Indeed. Once you have been bitten by git commit hooks misbehaving a few times
(like when they used to revert the rest of your changed files if you committed
just a subset of them), you "learn" to use --no-verify just to be safe and it
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:53:18PM +0200, Thomas Arnhold
> wrote:
>> I think this was not intended. Simple solution would be to add some
>> '<<< HEAD' .* '===' .* '>>> master' stuff to git hooks. So
>> git would block commits wit
On 07/29/2011 01:45 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:37:20 +0200
Miklos Vajna wrote:
15:47<@Sweetshark> shm_get: I just killed the hooks dir with maximum
prejudice.
Yes, because the changes from master that I merged into the branch
didnt conform to the tests in githooks (
On 07/29/2011 01:37 PM, Miklos Vajna wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:46:21AM +0200, Thomas Arnhold
wrote:
Yeah, I've already found that file. Strangely we already have such a
check:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/bootstrap/tree/git-hooks/pre-commit#n61
Oh, now I remember how such
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:37:20 +0200
Miklos Vajna wrote:
> 15:47 <@Sweetshark> shm_get: I just killed the hooks dir with maximum
> prejudice.
Yes, because the changes from master that I merged into the branch
didnt conform to the tests in githooks (I assume the hooks got stricter
since the time of
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:46:21AM +0200, Thomas Arnhold
wrote:
> Yeah, I've already found that file. Strangely we already have such a
> check:
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/bootstrap/tree/git-hooks/pre-commit#n61
Oh, now I remember how such conflicts could be still introduced:
15
On 07/29/2011 11:01 AM, Miklos Vajna wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:53:18PM +0200, Thomas Arnhold
wrote:
I think this was not intended. Simple solution would be to add some
'<<< HEAD' .* '===' .* '>>> master' stuff to git hooks. So
git would block commits with conflicts.
Goo
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:53:18PM +0200, Thomas Arnhold
wrote:
> I think this was not intended. Simple solution would be to add some
> '<<< HEAD' .* '===' .* '>>> master' stuff to git hooks. So
> git would block commits with conflicts.
Good idea - care to send a patch? The pre-com
I am talking about things that were fixed once and then overwritten by a merge.
I mean it conflicts for a reason!
On (2011-07-27 13:32), Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> >> If a patch/merge touches all of the platform files then it should be
> >> sent to the developers responsible for that part of the tree
>> If a patch/merge touches all of the platform files then it should be
>> sent to the developers responsible for that part of the tree directly,
I didn't know we had "responsibility" for the tree split up to specific
developers?
Everybody else encounters problems now and then caused by others.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:10:21 +0200
Robert Nagy wrote:
> That ain't a 1000 files.
And bootstrap is not the only repo.
--
https://launchpad.net/~bjoern-michaelsen
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedeskto
On (2011-07-27 20:31), Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:06:06 +0200
> Robert Nagy wrote:
>
> > If a patch/merge touches all of the platform files then it should be
> > sent to the developers responsible for that part of the tree directly,
>
> Completely unworkable for a cws that
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:06:06 +0200
Robert Nagy wrote:
> If a patch/merge touches all of the platform files then it should be
> sent to the developers responsible for that part of the tree directly,
Completely unworkable for a cws that was open (not integrated) at OOo,
needed huge rework (endless
On (2011-07-27 15:53), Thomas Arnhold wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 02:35 PM, Robert Nagy wrote:
> >I would like to ask my fellow developers to be more careful
> >about merging and _touching_ files at all that they don't
> >understand. During the last two days I had to fix several
> >problems that were in
On (2011-07-27 10:50), Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> Having done massive merge with conflicting files numbering in the
> thousands, I would be less quick to throw a stone here.
> I also had to iron some kink on MacOs this week-end as a fallback of
> gnumake4 merge... but all in all it 'cost' me few hou
On (2011-07-27 10:03), Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 14:35 +0200, Robert Nagy wrote:
> > I would like to ask my fellow developers to be more careful
> > about merging and _touching_ files at all that they don't
> > understand. During the last two days I had to fix several
> > problem
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:35:23 +0200
Robert Nagy wrote:
> I would like to ask my fellow developers to be more careful
> about merging and _touching_ files at all that they don't
> understand. During the last two days I had to fix several
> problems that were introduced by merging changes, hell I
>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Robert Nagy wrote:
> I would like to ask my fellow developers to be more careful
> about merging and _touching_ files at all that they don't
> understand. During the last two days I had to fix several
> problems that were introduced by merging changes, hell I
> eve
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 14:35 +0200, Robert Nagy wrote:
> I would like to ask my fellow developers to be more careful
> about merging and _touching_ files at all that they don't
> understand. During the last two days I had to fix several
> problems that were introduced by merging changes, hell I
> ev
On 07/27/2011 02:35 PM, Robert Nagy wrote:
I would like to ask my fellow developers to be more careful
about merging and _touching_ files at all that they don't
understand. During the last two days I had to fix several
problems that were introduced by merging changes, hell I
even found files with
I would like to ask my fellow developers to be more careful
about merging and _touching_ files at all that they don't
understand. During the last two days I had to fix several
problems that were introduced by merging changes, hell I
even found files with _conflicts_ in them and the guy who
pushed i
21 matches
Mail list logo
