[Bioperl-l] Merge branch 'master' ?
razi.khaja at gmail.com
Tue Jun 8 21:18:07 EDT 2010
This is awesome! Looks like my contributions became a topic of conversation
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Florent Angly <florent.angly at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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
>>> 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
>> 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
>> I'm not picking on fangly here, I'm simply struggling to improve my own
>> Jay Hannah
>> seeker of git enlightenment
>> Bioperl-l mailing list
>> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
More information about the Bioperl-l