On 06/28/2011 05:00 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> On 06/27/2011 10:34 AM, Tim Flink wrote: I went through and did
> merge of master into stable in order to bring it up to date.
> As a test run, I pushed it up to github instead of the
> fedorahosted repo:
> If this change is OK, I can push to the fedorahosted repo.
Hey Tim, could you please next time push to some branch in our git
repo instead? I don't understand the reason to push to another repo.
It's much easier to look at a particular branch than to add a new
I did it that way because I can share code and there is no way it can
unintentionally affect the main repo and adding remotes in git is easy.
I can also delete all history of the merge without affecting other
people in a meaningful way.
Now that I know how to do it:-), I'll share with others:
$ git remote add tf git://github.com/tflink/autoqa-devel.git
$ git fetch tf
Now when I do:
$ git diff origin/master tf/stable
I see some weird differences, I don't think the code is ok. You tried
to merge it, right? That's the reason why I suggested diff-patch
approach , to be sure that stable is exactly same as 0.5.0 as
tagged in master.
Yes, I did do a merge instead of extract/patch. I don't have an
explanation for what shows up in that diff but if you look at the files
or do a diff with their common ancestor (instead of between the branch
heads), they're the same.
I thought that my crash course on git internals yesterday would have
been enough to figure this out but perhaps not.
I don't understand why preserving history isn't important, why tagging
on stable is better or the lack of release branches. My lack of
understanding isn't enough to argue and delay 0.5.0's release, though.
The right code will end up being released.
If there are no further changes waiting, I'll gladly tag the
and update the stable branch.
Go for it. James tagged master yesterday (if that's what you were
talking about) and I don't think that there have been changes since then.