68 Matching Annotations
- Mar 2024
-
Local file Local file
-
163
Early 20th century mail merge using a card index!
-
- Jan 2024
-
www.avery.com www.avery.com
-
gitlab.com gitlab.com
-
we should break down and MR into "Blocks"
-
Code block Metadata block Note block MR block (we should still be able to interact with the MR as a whole thing, e.g. leaving a generic comment on the whole thing)
-
-
A user wants to comment on a single parameter name in a function. It is highlighted as a unique part of the syntax tree, and they're not happy with the particular name the author of the MR chose. Problem: The user can only comment on the entire line, because "lines" are considered the most fundamental building block in our Diffs UI.
-
A user notices that an unchanged part of the diff already has features that are being implemented in the changes in the MR. The user leaves a comment on the unchanged part of the diff, telling the author that what they're trying to do is already present. Problem: The author cannot see that comment in the Changes tab, because the comment is outside the understood scope of the diff.
-
A reviewer would like to open a discussion on the MR description because they disagree with some of the conclusions, but want more clarification. Problem: The only way to have a conversation about the MR metadata (like title, description, labels, etc.) is to open a generic note on the whole MR. There's no way to scope a discussion to a part of the MR.
-
- Feb 2023
-
medium.com medium.com
-
In very large code bases, it is likely impossible to make a change to a fundamental API and get it code reviewed by every affected team before merge conflicts force the process to start over again.
-
- Nov 2022
-
-
Not trying to be presumptuous, but thought this proposal would be best served with a PR.
-
- Oct 2021
-
cloud.tencent.com cloud.tencent.com
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- May 2021
-
github.com github.com
-
No it doesn't. I've simply told SvelteKit to ignore the type error from credentials missing. If there's some other issue or missing feature it's not blocked by this. That being said, I wouldn't mind getting this change in
-
-
github.com github.com
-
If you would like to make a code change, go ahead. Fork the repository, open a pull request. Do this early, and talk about the change you want to make. Maybe we can work together on it.
-
-
stackoverflow.com stackoverflow.com
-
kdiff3 can be used solely with keyboard, so 5 conflict file takes when reading the code just few minutes.
-
Thanks. Worked for me. I needed to move the merged directory into a sub-folder so after following the above steps I simply used git mv source-dir/ dest/new-source-dir
-
In case you want to put project-a into a subdirectory, you can use git-filter-repo (filter-branch is discouraged)
-
-
-
syslog.ravelin.com syslog.ravelin.com
-
github.com github.com
-
New changes to the old repositories can be imported into the monorepo and merged in. For example, in the above example, say repository one had a branch my_branch which continued to be developed after the migration. To pull those changes in:
-
-
-
stephan-bester.medium.com stephan-bester.medium.com
-
mattmazzola.medium.com mattmazzola.medium.com
-
github.com github.com
-
Let's say that we want to extract a piece of a repository, with the intent on merging just that piece into some other bigger repo.
-
- Apr 2021
-
techmunching.com techmunching.com
-
Very good post and with nice animated gif`s
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Feb 2021
-
www.coursera.org www.coursera.org
-
Another HD wallet solution to generate privacy is a so-called merge and re-split operation. In this example, several entities anonymously submit new addresses to a smart contract. The contract collects the same amount from each party, let's say it's 100 bitcoins each. Then the contract re-deploys the amount to the new addresses.
workaround to avoid full trace with attribution
-
-
github.com github.com
-
Rebasing For feature/topic branches, you should always use the --rebase flag to git pull, or if you are usually handling many temporary "to be in a github pull request" branches, run the following to automate this: git config branch.autosetuprebase local
That's what I keep telling people. Glad to see I'm not the only one...
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
-
github.com github.com
-
Any idea @AaronLasseigne if this is mergeable?
-
-
github.com github.com
-
Fork rails, add github.com/georgebrock/rails as a remote, merge this branch into rails/4.0.2 (the tag), and then use your fork of Rails: gem 'rails', github: 'yourusername/rails'
-
-
github.com github.com
-
This branch is 22 commits ahead, 207 commits behind newsapps:master.
-
- Jan 2021
-
github.com github.com
-
On the linked thread I've put details, a suggestion for implementation and an offer of help if someone wants to submit a PR. Let's see what happens!
If you've done all that work, why not just submit the PR yourself? Maybe the implementation was too incomplete/untested...
-
- Dec 2020
-
www.gimpusers.com www.gimpusers.com
-
It works very well, especially since the current Gimp roadmap relegates CMYK support to a version Gimp 3.2 However to be fairquoteShould a new developer join the team to specifically work on CMYK-related features, we will do our best to help him/her to complete this project and get it to our users as soon as possible.unquoteNot holding my breath.
-
-
www.npmjs.com www.npmjs.com
-
No more waiting around for pull requests to be merged and published. No more forking repos just to fix that one tiny thing preventing your app from working.
This could be both good and bad.
potential downside: If people only fix things locally, then they may be less inclined/likely to actually/also submit a merge request, and therefore it may be less likely that this actually (ever) gets fixed upstream. Which is kind of ironic, considering the stated goal "No more waiting around for pull requests to be merged and published." But if this obviates the need to create a pull request (does it), then this could backfire / work against that goal.
Requiring someone to fork a repo and push up a fix commit -- although a little extra work compared to just fixing locally -- is actually a good thing overall, for the community/ecosystem.
Ah, good, I see they touched on some of these points in the sections:
- Benefits of patching over forking
- When to fork instead
-
-
github.com github.com
-
Can this be merged please, this fixes a problem I have
-
-
github.com github.com
-
May I ask what is holding this back?
-
- Nov 2020
-
github.com github.com
-
You can also see this repo: default-passive-events.
-
-
github.com github.com
-
I see this issue has 2 open PR's is this going to be finalized anytime soon?
-
-
github.com github.com
-
github.com github.com
-
Furthermore, how come there's a PR open since 3 months, at what seems to be the authoritative repo for Svelte?
-
-
github.com github.com
-
github.com github.com
-
I'm happy to accept PRs :)
-
-
github.com github.com
-
Bonus SSR bugs I bumped into and fixed while addressing this:
-
-
-
I'm not going to work on this myself, but if somebody comes up with a patch, I'd be happy to review and merge.
-
- Oct 2020
-
indieweb.org indieweb.org
-
2011-06-23 at OSBridge2011 having lunch with Ward, Tantek exclaimed: The Read Write Web is no longer sufficient. I want the Read Fork Write Merge Web. #osb11 lunch table. #diso #indieweb
This is what I want too!
-
-
-
But maybe this PR should still be merged until he finds time for that?
-
Sorry this sat for so long!
Tags
- waiting for maintainers to review / merge pull request / give feedback
- don't let big plans/goals get in the way of integrating/releasing smaller changes/improvements
- iterative process
- open-source software: progress seems slow
- not a blocker (issue dependency)
- pull request stalled
- big change/rewrite vs. continuous improvements / smaller refactorings
Annotators
URL
-
- Sep 2020
-
github.com github.com
-
The feature is highly likely to be implemented, the API and implementation are the only real topics of discussion right now.
-
- Aug 2020
-
docs.gitlab.com docs.gitlab.com
-
New information that would be useful toward the future usage or troubleshooting of GitLab should not be written directly in a forum or other messaging system, but added to a docs MR and then referenced, as described above.
-
When you encounter new information not available in GitLab’s documentation (for example, when working on a support case or testing a feature), your first step should be to create a merge request (MR) to add this information to the docs. You can then share the MR in order to communicate this information.
-
-
-
Will you accept merge requests on the gitlab-ce/gitlab-foss project after it has been renamed? No. Merge requests submitted to this project will be closed automatically.
-
- Jul 2020
-
github.com github.com
-
Problem is, everyone's busy, so it can be days or even weeks before even a small PR is merged. So I'm stashing my stuff here as I write it. I'll still try to keep the PRs in motion, to gradually get some of this merged.
-
- May 2020
-
docs.docker.com docs.docker.com
-
Edit this page Request docs changes
-
-
gitlab.com gitlab.com
-
so that we would accept proposed changes from the community around this feature.
-
-
about.gitlab.com about.gitlab.com
-
If people care about a missing feature, then ideally the issue should be marked as ~"Accepting merge requests"
-
-
gitlab.com gitlab.com
-
The merge request must not contain more than 10 commit messages. This rule is maybe the most controversial.
-
With single-commit MRs I often can copy the commit message directly into the MR description, which is convenient.
-
- Apr 2020
-
www.benjaminfleischer.com www.benjaminfleischer.com
-
In particular, I, quite accidentally, became a maintainer of ActsAsTaggableOn, a Rails tagging engine, after bumping a long-stale, minor, pull-request I had written.
-
-
github.com github.com
-
Test on more recent rubies
-
-
-
in order to track the always-improving upstream project, we continuously rebase our patches on top of the upstream master
-
-
github.com github.com
-
Maybe you could provide a patch with tests and we could discuss on top of it?
-
- Mar 2020
-
github.com github.com
-
Don't be discouraged when you get feedback about a method that isn't all sunshine and roses. Facets has been around long enough now that it needs to maintain a certain degree of quality control, and that means serious discernment about what goes into the library. That includes having in depth discussions the merits of methods, even about the best name for a method --even if the functionality has been accepted the name may not.
about: merits
-
- Feb 2020
-
about.gitlab.com about.gitlab.com
-
it is worth opening a merge request with the minimal viable change instead of opening an issue encouraging open feedback on the problem without proposing any specific change directly.
-
- Jan 2020
-
www.ruby-lang.org www.ruby-lang.org
-
We don’t use merge commits.
-
- Aug 2019
-
stackoverflow.com stackoverflow.com
-
I've forked the project and made a substantial extension. I think is ready to merge back. But (appropriately) its the project owner who gets to make that call not me. And it's now been several weeks without reply.
-
- Oct 2017
-
totalism.org totalism.org
-
At the same time, the whole logic of
from [::text] manifesto
-