| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:37 |
alkemann |
OT. what was that trick to only run one of the tests in a testcase (besides commenting out or renaming) |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:35 |
alkemann |
but if gwoo is fine with it, then i guess im too :) |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:35 |
markstory |
meh |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:35 |
alkemann |
yea git makes me like to work that way. i just felt it a bit unclean pushing these events to the public repo |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:35 |
markstory |
so 1.3-bake had about 6 branches on my computer. |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:35 |
markstory |
I use lots of small branches personally. |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:34 |
markstory |
because I don't care about them. How I got to the end is normally not important. |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:34 |
markstory |
and I don't make branch names that others understand |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:34 |
gwoo |
both |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:34 |
markstory |
I don't squash merges |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:34 |
alkemann |
markstory: do u do this? or do you work on the locally tracking branch? |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:34 |
gwoo |
alkemann: looks fine to me |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:34 |
gwoo |
alkemann: why? |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:32 |
markstory |
you can squash the merge commit as well. |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:32 |
alkemann |
then maybe these local development branches should be named something that makes sense to public .. like "local-2.0" |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:31 |
alkemann |
ok |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:31 |
markstory |
at least that's how I understand it. |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:31 |
markstory |
because without the merge commit there would be no way to find out the commit's parent previous to the merge. |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:30 |
gwoo |
alkemann: ask the git guys not me |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:30 |
markstory |
not if there was no merge commit. |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:30 |
alkemann |
wouldnt that be checkout the commit before the merged commits? |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:30 |
markstory |
so you can undo the merge |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:30 |
alkemann |
gwoo: ^ |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:28 |
alkemann |
paralell conversation.. bit confusing. but about these merges, as i understood it, the merge is just saying that these commits should be associated with this branch, if there are no conflicts, why is there made a commit of the merge? |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:28 |
ProLoser|Work |
hey is there a url i can checkout this userplugin you guys are talking about? |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:27 |
alkemann |
the speccs for the userplugin as i understood it isnt totally compatible with the "old" as it removes any field that should be in a "profile" model and the group_id isnt part of the users table etc |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:25 |
gwoo |
alkemann: unless there is an easy way to upgrade people |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:25 |
gwoo |
alkemann: they are part of the history, i just need to check what they merged so i can show it |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:25 |
alkemann |
gwoo: so we must threat the existing plugin and table as legacy code to be compatible with? |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:24 |
Phally |
gwoo: hehe good morning then :) |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:24 |
gwoo |
) |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:24 |
gwoo |
Phally: no, just woke up |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:24 |
alkemann |
gwoo: and i develop locally in a seperate branch and merge into the 2.0 branch, but i end up with commits like this. which i dont think need to be part of the history on thechaw. http://thechaw.com/bakery/commits/view/07677e87803dd3e50e31cdf27d80e400cabf508b - what do you think? |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:24 |
Phally |
gwoo: yes i did, have you checked it out? |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:24 |
ProLoser|Work |
you guys are making a usertable plugin? |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:23 |
gwoo |
s |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:23 |
gwoo |
and he refactoring something |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:23 |
gwoo |
i talked to phally about it a bit |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:23 |
gwoo |
so it can be used across sites |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:23 |
gwoo |
yes it should be as inline with the old plugin as possible |
| # |
Jul 20th 2009, 09:23 |
alkemann |
gwoo: what do u think abuot the userplug in we are making, should the book be updated to use it, should they use seperate plugins, but the same table? does the new plugin have to use the existing schema ? like the "psword" field |