[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: low-hanging SRFI fruit (SRFI-98)
From: |
Neil Jerram |
Subject: |
Re: low-hanging SRFI fruit (SRFI-98) |
Date: |
Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:10:06 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) |
Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
> You should be able to remove the ref entirely with "git push :master"
> then "git push master" -- as least the last time I mucked with these
> things that's how it worked.
Ah cool, I'll try to remember that for the future.
> BUT... I wouldn't bother, really. In the meantime I committed a few
> things to `master' this morning, so we'd need to rebase anew. The merge
> commit has no practical implications, and indeed will happen from time
> to time with distributed development. And now if we fudge the history,
> it could be that people's git pull invocations stop running, like your
> snapshot did.
>
> So while if you really want to do this, we can, but my advice would be
> to let the tangle drop off into history ;-)
I'm very nearly persuaded by this... but I feel that I don't
understand why some of the ways of looking at the merge commit show so
many diffs. For example:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/commit/?id=2f9ae9b1040e1b9339bb0bc8b0013a5346622c44
(On the other hand, gitweb -
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=commitdiff;h=2f9ae9b1040e1b9339bb0bc8b0013a5346622c44
- just says "Trivial merge", which is more reassuring, and I think
reflects reality.)
I'm imagining looking back through the history at some future time
when I've forgotten what happened here. When that happens, I don't
want to be misled into thinking that the merge commit made loads of
changes, when in fact it didn't.
Is it just that I'm misunderstanding what cgit shows?
Regards,
Neil