[Bioperl-l] Merge branch 'master' ?

Florent Angly florent.angly at gmail.com
Tue Jun 8 19:53:56 EDT 2010

For the record, this is what I have been doing:
I have my git clone to get my local git repository.
I make changes to the BioPerl code, then git commit
I make more changes, then git commit
Regularly, I do git pull to keep my repository up-to-date
Eventually, I git push my changes upstream.

I am not too familiar with git but I think this is essentially the easy 
steps describes on the wiki. If it's better to explicitely make a new 
branch (not 'master'), let me know. I just don't see the advantage for me.


On 06/08/2010 09:35 PM, Jay Hannah wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2010, at 5:49 AM, noreply at github.com wrote:
>> Commit: 0e70e88a76d638d9f0406643c37691bb20d60ceb
>>     http://github.com/bioperl/bioperl-live/commit/0e70e88a76d638d9f0406643c37691bb20d60ceb
>> Author: Florent Angly<florent.angly at gmail.com>
>> Date:   2010-06-08 (Tue, 08 Jun 2010)
>> Merge branch 'master' of github.com:bioperl/bioperl-live
> I'm fascinated by these commits, and my git-fu is still weak.
> I think what's happening here is that any time anyone commits anything fangly is merging those changes into his own repo, which he then merges back to bioperl/bioperl-live again.
> So fangly's procedure (whatever it is), is re-committing other people's commits? Making history twice as long with (empty?) "Merge branch 'master'" messages? The diff of these commits reports that fangly is the author of other people's changes(!) yet somehow git annotate still reports that t/data/ZABJ4EA7014.CH878695.1.blast.txt was authored by Razi Khaja yesterday (correct).
> Am I reading that correctly? I find that history very confusing.
> In #moose they taught me to merge other people's commits using the procedure below. This is what I did yesterday to merge rkhaja/bioperl-live into bioperl/bioperl-live (per conversations in IRC).
>     git remote add rkhaja git://github.com/rkhaja/bioperl-live.git
>     git fetch rkhaja
>     git checkout -b rkhaja-merge rkhaja/master
>     git rebase master
>     git checkout master
>     git merge rkhaja-merge
>     git branch -d rkhaja-merge
> That procedure did not create a "Merge branch 'master'" commit. So is that procedure cleaner than fangly's? Is it the rebase command that makes the difference?
> I'm not picking on fangly here, I'm simply struggling to improve my own git-fu.
> Thanks,
> Jay Hannah
> seeker of git enlightenment
> http://biodoc.ist.unomaha.edu/wiki/User:Jhannah
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list