[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: merge conlict?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: merge conlict? |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:11:24 +0200 |
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:11:34 -0500
>
> > I agree with Óscar: this is a lot of potentially unnecessary work.
>
> Who cares: it just describes my workflow, nothing more. If/when I feel
> like such a workflow should be turned into a convention that other
> people should follow, rest assured that I'll do so in a separate thread.
Fine with me. But since this issue comes up time and again here,
perhaps you should just say that, as a matter of policy, for now no
such effort is required or expected when features are merged and
committed to the trunk.
- Re: merge conlict?, (continued)
- Re: merge conlict?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Andreas Schwab, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Andreas Schwab, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Andreas Schwab, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/01/26
- Re: merge conlict?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/01/26
- Re: merge conlict?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: merge conlict?, Karl Fogel, 2010/01/26
- Re: merge conlict?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/01/26
- Re: merge conlict?, Karl Fogel, 2010/01/26
- Re: merge conlict?, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/01/26
- Re: merge conlict?, David Reitter, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Andreas Schwab, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, David Reitter, 2010/01/25
- Re: merge conlict?, Teemu Likonen, 2010/01/25