| 1 |
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:41:56 -0500 |
| 2 |
Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:51 AM Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:33:36 -0500 |
| 8 |
> > Tim Harder <radhermit@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > On 2019-12-06 Fri 04:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 11 |
> > > > it's not just like repoman and cvs since repoman commit did |
| 12 |
> > > > push ;) it will never be perfect but i really like repoman |
| 13 |
> > > > commit to refuse to even commit if there's something obviously |
| 14 |
> > > > wrong |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > I'm more of the opinion (and am working towards that practicality |
| 17 |
> > > in terms of runtime speed) that a subset of QA checks should be |
| 18 |
> > > run as a git hook which would cause push failures on certain |
| 19 |
> > > classes of bad commits. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > There should be both. Amending the 23rd commit message because one |
| 23 |
> > mistyped a semicolon is kind of a PITA. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> It is? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> git rebase -i HEAD~23 |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Is that what you think is a pain in the ass, or do you not know about |
| 30 |
> interactive rebase? :) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
You made me look at the doc and I indeed had never used the reword |
| 34 |
option ;) got stuck at pick/squash/edit somehow and that's the edit I |
| 35 |
did consider a PITA yes |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Without good integration from the checker it is probably a PITA to |
| 38 |
figure out that 23 too and also still doesn't help for broken commits |
| 39 |
(not messages) that may or may not trigger later conflicts (unless we |
| 40 |
decide we don't care about working commits, just working pushes, which |
| 41 |
WFM) |
Archives