digitalmars.D - Some files reappearing in dlang repo that should be dead (or: stop
- Andrej Mitrovic (18/18) Feb 24 2014 See https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos :
- Daniel Murphy (7/13) Feb 25 2014 I agree. I wish we could disable all changes to master not done by merg...
- Andrej Mitrovic (2/4) Feb 25 2014 I didn't even know this was a feature, can you elaborate how to do this?
- Vladimir Panteleev (8/14) Feb 25 2014 I think a trivial way to do that is to change the protocol to
- Daniel Murphy (3/9) Feb 25 2014 Yeah, not exactly a git feature, but it works.
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 changelog.dd should not exist in the Phobos repo (this was an outdated file).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
"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
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
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 13:33:56 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:On 2/25/14, Daniel Murphy <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> wrote: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-onlyI 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
"Vladimir Panteleev" wrote in message news:unhchiuzxwoniwuaqhsv forum.dlang.org...Yeah, not exactly a git feature, but it works.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