Hi,
> On 20 May 2018, at 7:26 am, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
>
>
> V ned., 20. maj 2018 00:06 je oseba Marcus Calhoun-Lopez napisala:
>> There is a pull request to update Octave to 4.4.0.
>> A significant amount of work has been put in to it.
>> While attempting to address some of the outstanding
Hi,
In my view, if you can you should push your changes to the branch used for the
existing PR. As you used it as the basis for your work best to keep the update
in one place.
Chris
> On 19 May 2018, at 11:22 pm, Marcus Calhoun-Lopez
> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the advice.
>
> I do not beli
V ned., 20. maj 2018 00:06 je oseba Marcus Calhoun-Lopez napisala:
> There is a pull request to update Octave to 4.4.0.
> A significant amount of work has been put in to it.
> While attempting to address some of the outstanding issues, my version had
> diverged in some significant ways.
>
> Does a
Thank you for the advice.
I do not believe I was clear.
The pull request is *not* mine.
I did, however, use it as a staring point for local changes.
Thanks,
Marcus
> On May 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 2018-05-20 00:06, Marcus Calhoun-Lopez wrote:
>>
Hello,
On 2018-05-20 00:06, Marcus Calhoun-Lopez wrote:
> Does anyone have any suggestions on the proper way forward?
It's a PR, you are the owner. Rebase and force push.
Unless there's a reason to keep the history there's no reason why not to
force push.
> It seems inefficient to attempt to de
There is a pull request to update Octave to 4.4.0.
A significant amount of work has been put in to it.
While attempting to address some of the outstanding issues, my version had
diverged in some significant ways.
Does anyone have any suggestions on the proper way forward?
It seems inefficient to
