On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> It seems that the current "branch" field in trac serves two purposes:
> (a) It's a pointer to code-in-development that people who are collaborating
> can refer to
> (b) It serves as the official "to-be-merged" code once the ticket has a
> posit
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 6:32:49 AM UTC-8, Simon King wrote:
>
> To say it clearly: In the scenario above, you *have* to rebase, with or
> without a change of history, and the rebase (if I understand correctly)
> is the same effort with or without a change of history.
>
> Hence, saying that
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo,
>
> On 2013-11-05, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
>> Example:
>>
>> 1. A, B are posted in ticket
>> 2. purple-sage (or sage-next, or whatever) gets interested in ducks,
>> and decides to merge these experimentally
>> 3. C is posted in tick
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 2:39:15 AM UTC-8, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> Sage-Trac vs. Github pull-requests with comments vs. Gerrit vs. ...
> https://help.github.com/articles/using-pull-requests
> http://alblue.bandlem.com/2011/02/gerrit-git-review-with-jenkins-ci.html
>
Those are reasonable gi
Hi Gonzalo,
On 2013-11-05, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
> Example:
>
> 1. A, B are posted in ticket
> 2. purple-sage (or sage-next, or whatever) gets interested in ducks,
> and decides to merge these experimentally
> 3. C is posted in ticket
> 4. review of ticket requests D, E
> 5. author rewrites his
More reading and some comments:
a. Linus et al on git rebase: http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/git_rebase.html.
b. An article in LWN about the topic: http://lwn.net/Articles/328436/
c. In the first reference there are a couple of comments by Linus on
"revert" -- including a recipe using rebase tha
Hi Ralf,
On 2013-11-05, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>> If you agree, then let me repeat my question: Why do some people believe
>> that changing A-B-C into A-B-C-D is better than changing it into A-C'?
>> Because in this case I really don't get the argument.
>
> Some people believe that changing history
On 11/05/2013 12:02 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Good. So, would you (and other people) agree that the effort needed to
> rebase X on top of A-C' is always (i.e., also in the case of conflicts)
> the same as the effort needed to rebase X on top of A-B-C-D (where D
> reverts B)?
In terms of code the sit
On 2013-11-03, Nils Bruin wrote:
> It seems that the current "branch" field in trac serves two purposes:
> (a) It's a pointer to code-in-development that people who are
> collaborating can refer to
> (b) It serves as the official "to-be-merged" code once the ticket has a
> positive review
>
>
Hi Ralf,
Am Dienstag, 5. November 2013 11:39:15 UTC+1 schrieb Ralf Hemmecke:
>
> Bold question... does Sage still need Trac?
>
>
I believe, as long as there are open trac tickets with an attached patch,
it is simply more practical to keep development in *one* spot (namely on
trac). Unless there
Hi Ralf,
On 2013-11-05, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>> Good to know! I did not test yet. Is there any manual intervention
>> needed, if X is disjoint from the changes introduced in B?
>
> No. A merge conflict can only happen, if X builds (depends) on changes
> that are introduced in B, since these chang
On 2013-11-04, Greg Laun wrote:
> In researching python interfaces to opengl, I found a discussion from 2007
> about using pyglet for 3D plotting in sage
> (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/AIyET83jB6A). But I
> can find nothing beyond that to suggest why the project of incor
Bold question... does Sage still need Trac?
Has someone already compared all options for a workflow with git?
Sage-Trac vs. Github pull-requests with comments vs. Gerrit vs. ...
https://help.github.com/articles/using-pull-requests
http://alblue.bandlem.com/2011/02/gerrit-git-review-with-jenkins-
On 11/05/2013 10:09 AM, Simon King wrote:
>> To achieve this from the above situation, you do
>>
>> git rebase --onto ticket/123 master ticket/456
>
> Good to know! I did not test yet. Is there any manual intervention
> needed, if X is disjoint from the changes introduced in B?
No. A merge confli
Hi Ralf,
On 2013-11-05, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>> So, what simple and easy-to-use command does git offer to create a
>> "negative commit"? That's to say, if I have commits A-B-C and want to
>> "remove" B, how can I make git create a commit D for me such that
>> A-B-C-D results in the same code as A
> So, what simple and easy-to-use command does git offer to create a
> "negative commit"? That's to say, if I have commits A-B-C and want to
> "remove" B, how can I make git create a commit D for me such that
> A-B-C-D results in the same code as A-C?
https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/do
16 matches
Mail list logo
