On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 18:57 +0100, Jesse Barker wrote:
> All these git related puns are killing me :-)
Ha, it's nice to make people laugh but I find that if I hit the stage I
don't feel as committed to it anymore.
Ok, you might find that one a bit far-fetched but I beg to differ :)
Will
__
All these git related puns are killing me :-)
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Tixy wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:16 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > >> one reason why my understanding of the actual problem here was a bit
> > >> patchy.
git rebase -i is a god send if you find yourself needing to rebase
often and it get even better when you learn about git rerere (google
it)
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Tixy wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:16 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Tixy wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:16 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> >> one reason why my understanding of the actual problem here was a bit
> >> patchy.
> >
> > :-)
>
> _not_ intentional! (if you believe me)
I don't believe you; I think you should consider
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Tixy wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:16 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
>> one reason why my understanding of the actual problem here was a bit
>> patchy.
>
> :-)
_not_ intentional! (if you believe me)
Anyway ... interactive rebase solved my problem relatively painle
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:16 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> one reason why my understanding of the actual problem here was a bit
> patchy.
:-)
--
Tixy
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linar
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
>
>> The problem seems to be that when a merge is committed, git references
>> the merged commits in their original context: no information is
>> recorded about how the merge was resolved. The result jus
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
> The problem seems to be that when a merge is committed, git references
> the merged commits in their original context: no information is
> recorded about how the merge was resolved. The result just appears by
> magic as the new tree recorded for the merge
Hi all,
I've encountered a problem trying to unpick the history of the linaro
git trees, but I don't think it's specific to us:
The problem seems to be that when a merge is committed, git references
the merged commits in their original context: no information is
recorded about how the merge was r
