www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Some files reappearing in dlang repo that should be dead (or: stop

reply "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
See https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos :

-----
changelog.dd 	Revert "Use  monarchdodra's suggestion to replace ; 
with {}"
-----

Did someone write to master again by accident? changelog.dd 
should not exist in the Phobos repo (this was an outdated file). 
There are other files that were touched in that commit, but I'm 
not sure if anything else should be removed.

We should really **always** use pull requests, otherwise these 
types of commits slip in without notice. I keep seeing people say 
"Oh I've fixed this in master just 10 minutes ago with a force 
push". And then crap like this[1] happens. There seem to be more 
than one person pushing directly to master, I've seen it done by 
Walter, Daniel, Kenji, Martin, etc. Please guys, stop pushing 
upstream.

[1]: 
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/53070883.6000806 digitalmars.com
Feb 24 2014
next sibling parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:
"Andrej Mitrovic"  wrote in message 
news:fbsvnfnncukdtkftcffj forum.dlang.org...

 We should really **always** use pull requests, otherwise these types of 
 commits slip in without notice. I keep seeing people say "Oh I've fixed 
 this in master just 10 minutes ago with a force push". And then crap like 
 this[1] happens. There seem to be more than one person pushing directly to 
 master, I've seen it done by Walter, Daniel, Kenji, Martin, etc. Please 
 guys, stop pushing upstream.

I agree. I wish we could disable all changes to master not done by merging a pull request (can we?). Unfortunately sometimes pushing directly to master is unavoidable, usually because Walter broke it. I strongly recommend everyone with push-access to the main repo set their upstream remote to read-only.
Feb 25 2014
parent "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:
"Vladimir Panteleev"  wrote in message 
news:unhchiuzxwoniwuaqhsv forum.dlang.org...
 I didn't even know this was a feature, can you elaborate how to do this?

I think a trivial way to do that is to change the protocol to git://, as you can only pull over it. It looks like you can also override the push URL, and if it is set to an invalid value, you'll effectively disable pushing to that remote: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10270027/can-i-mark-a-git-remote-as-read-only

Yeah, not exactly a git feature, but it works.
Feb 25 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 2/25/14, Daniel Murphy <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> wrote:
 I strongly recommend everyone with push-access to the main repo set their
 upstream remote to read-only.

I didn't even know this was a feature, can you elaborate how to do this?
Feb 25 2014
prev sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 13:33:56 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic 
wrote:
 On 2/25/14, Daniel Murphy <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> wrote:
 I strongly recommend everyone with push-access to the main 
 repo set their
 upstream remote to read-only.

I didn't even know this was a feature, can you elaborate how to do this?

I think a trivial way to do that is to change the protocol to git://, as you can only pull over it. It looks like you can also override the push URL, and if it is set to an invalid value, you'll effectively disable pushing to that remote: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10270027/can-i-mark-a-git-remote-as-read-only
Feb 25 2014