Re: First-time pushing a patch

[Peekay Ex]

David,

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:58 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

...

>
> [Diversion: by the way, Phil and Graham?  I have come to the conclusion
>  that it is better if Patchy does not attempt any rebases or merges on
>  its own.  Can you change that accordingly?  It should quite simplify
>  Patchy and make its behavior more predictable: it would just try to
>  push its tested version of dev/staging to master, and if that fails,
>  it fails.
>
>  In that way, we are sure that _only_ completely tested versions end up
>  in master, and with identical structure to how people put them into
>  dev/staging.
>
>  A direct push to master bypassing dev/staging should be an emergency
>  measure, and then Patchy can well wait until somebody manually rebased
>  dev/staging.  Maybe we should rename the staging branch into just
>  "staging" as the "dev/" is needlessly obscure. ]
>

At the moment (it is I that has been running the compile script) it is
completely manual.

Once the script has run (and shows no errors) it reports

--snip--

HEAD is now at [commit hash]... [commit summary]
Current branch origin/dev/staging is up to date.
push merge:
(do this manually for debugging/testing)
       git push origin HEAD:master

--snip-

Then I do the push manually.

James




-- 
--
James