Log message #900603

# At Username Text
# Jul 20th 2009, 09:38 markstory }
# Jul 20th 2009, 09:38 markstory return array('start', 'startCase', '', 'endCase', 'end');
# Jul 20th 2009, 09:38 markstory function getTests() {
# Jul 20th 2009, 09:38 markstory getTests
# 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