[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092)
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092) |
Date: |
Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:02:26 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:10:14AM +0000, address@hidden wrote:
> On 2011/12/30 20:57:02, Graham Percival wrote:
> >I'm still concerned about this type of automatic pushing. The revised
> CG
> >material on branches
> > http://codereview.appspot.com/5484043/
> >makes a bit deal about always checking gitk -- just for 5 seconds --
> before
> >pushing, and I think that's a good step. Patchy will not question any
>
> I think I can achieve that automatically by looking at the commit log
> between staging and working. If there are no merge commits in that log,
> we are good to push IIUC.
Hmm. Could I interest you in adding some checks to Patchy? I'd
rather have that complexity in Patchy rather than lily-git.tcl --
that way, it doesn't matter if anything weird happens on a
command-line or within lily-git; we're still protected.
Cheers,
- Graham
- Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092), (continued)
- Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092), dak, 2011/12/29
- Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092), pkx166h, 2011/12/29
- Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092), Carl . D . Sorensen, 2011/12/29
- Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092), Carl . D . Sorensen, 2011/12/29
- Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092), graham, 2011/12/30
- Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092), dak, 2011/12/30
- Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092), Carl . D . Sorensen, 2011/12/30
- Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092),
Graham Percival <=
- Re: Update lilygit.tcl (Issue 2092) (issue 5504092), dak, 2011/12/31