On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
> You can set it only to push your current branch by doing:
>
> git config --global push.default current
> See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/948354/git-push-default-behavior for
> more info.
Just a note that I believe this is the default
On 05/17/2014 04:27 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
I only had a hiccup after pulling again, because of:
From git.lyx.org:lyx
* [new branch] 2.0.x -> origin/2.0.x
936773c..4bd0941 master -> origin/master
Current branch 2.1.x is up to date.
but "git br" showed no trace of 2.0.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 03:06:25PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 05/17/2014 11:38 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:09:54PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>Most probably, I have also to issue a "git -d 2.0.x" to completely
> >>get rid of the thing. For good measure,
On 05/17/2014 11:38 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:09:54PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Most probably, I have also to issue a "git -d 2.0.x" to completely
get rid of the thing. For good measure, I will also perform some
propitiatory rite...
Argh! Wrong rite, apparent
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:09:54PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> Most probably, I have also to issue a "git -d 2.0.x" to completely
> get rid of the thing. For good measure, I will also perform some
> propitiatory rite...
Argh! Wrong rite, apparently:
$ git br -d 2.0.x
error: The branch '2
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:04:42AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
>
> Your original problem was due to the fact that you had changes on
> the 2.0.x branch that had not yet been pushed. The command "git
> push", with no options, pushes everything that needs pushing unless
> you have set the config opti
On 05/16/2014 06:46 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 06:26:00PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
and I simply plan removing the [branch "2.0.x"] stanza.
Ah, now I see what you meant above. I am still not used to 2.0.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 06:26:00PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> > and I simply plan removing the [branch "2.0.x"] stanza.
>
> Ah, now I see what you meant above. I am still not used to 2.0.x as
> being "old". I was reading it as I
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> and I simply plan removing the [branch "2.0.x"] stanza.
Ah, now I see what you meant above. I am still not used to 2.0.x as
being "old". I was reading it as I should read 2.1.x. I still put the
date as 2013 also :)
Scott
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 06:09:17PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> > Now git is still someway trying to also push 2.0.x and I would
> > like to tell it not to do that, but I don't know neither why it still
> > insists on 2.0.x nor wha
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> Now git is still someway trying to also push 2.0.x and I would
> like to tell it not to do that, but I don't know neither why it still
> insists on 2.0.x nor what I can do.
>From what I understand, when you do a "git push" you only want
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:45:27PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> >> Merge the remote changes (e.g. 'git pull') before pushing again. See the
>
> When I get this error, doing a
> git pull --rebase
> is usually what I want. Git will
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> Merge the remote changes (e.g. 'git pull') before pushing again. See the
When I get this error, doing a
git pull --rebase
is usually what I want. Git will not let you push if you do not have
the latest version. Even if you edited a fi
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:37:31PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:50:44AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> > On 05/16/2014 11:07 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > >Richard, this could go to branch. It's only cosmetic, though.
> >
> > As you think best.
>
> I pushed it. H
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:50:44AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 11:07 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >Richard, this could go to branch. It's only cosmetic, though.
>
> As you think best.
I pushed it. However, git told me bad things:
$ git push
Counting objects: 9, done.
Delta compr
On 05/16/2014 11:07 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:31:51PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
commit 95787a0a4c3f6c037b22cb4ba8c98f2e8fa988de
Author: Enrico Forestieri
Date: Fri May 16 15:11:08 2014 +0200
Fix an on-screen representation glitch.
If a layo
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:31:51PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> commit 95787a0a4c3f6c037b22cb4ba8c98f2e8fa988de
> Author: Enrico Forestieri
> Date: Fri May 16 15:11:08 2014 +0200
>
> Fix an on-screen representation glitch.
>
> If a layout has NextNoIndent set to true, the foll
17 matches
Mail list logo
