doc : rebase #2742

tacaswell · 2014-01-18T05:42:55Z

My writing probably needs a lot of editing.

tacaswell · 2014-01-20T03:05:15Z

I have never liked origin for a remote name. Is origin your user github repo (which could make sense) or is in the upstream version which is the 'origin' of the the library.

To be fair, my use of 'github' for the user's repository is just as confusing.

pelson · 2014-01-20T10:20:32Z

FWIW numpy have also documented a similar thing: http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/dev/gitwash/development_workflow.html#rebasing-on-master

tacaswell · 2014-01-30T00:54:26Z

@pelson I (humbly) like my version better because I include the output of the middle steps, but I will include a link.

tacaswell · 2014-01-30T15:38:32Z

don't merge this, I am going to go through and update the rest of the git documentation as well (git is changing under us a bit in the way it deals with push).

I also plan to change origin -> github as a remote name everywhere.

tacaswell · 2014-01-30T15:41:55Z

I am also going to remove the text about emailing diffs to the mailing list to bring our documentation into line with our practice (which seems to be to make PRs and then do the review in the PR).

fariza · 2014-02-06T14:06:02Z

doc/devel/coding_guide.rst

+The first step is to make sure that your local copy of the upstream repository is
+up-to-date::
+
+     $ git fetch upstream


Is it pertinent a git checkout master before the git fetch upstream?

No, fetch only copies commits it does not merge them into your branches. I am deeply suspicious of pull.

So am I: pull merges automatically, which is rarely what you want.

fariza · 2014-02-06T17:47:56Z

I didn't notice before, you are adding this text to doc/devel/coding_guide.rst I think it belongs to doc/devel/gitwash/development_workflow.rst It is not coding per se, it's github and more specifically git related.

Actually that link development_workflow is the reference for all of us newcomers and git virgins.

Just a little extra, the origin vs github name.
I prefer origin, when you look for documentation non related to matplotlib, in general everybody use origin representing your fork in github. And consistence with the rest of the documentation is more important than personal preferences (origin is used in gitwash stuff)

fariza · 2014-03-25T22:24:44Z

@tacaswell
For the requested review, please check my last comment.
In short my suggestions are:

Use origin instead of github
Belongs to development_workflow.rst and not to coding_guide.rst

tacaswell · 2014-03-26T00:29:09Z

Sorry, this issue should have been tagged as needs revision, thanks for poking me on this.

tacaswell · 2014-07-09T05:29:05Z

punted

NelleV · 2014-07-11T15:24:23Z

doc/devel/coding_guide.rst

+considered bad form, but in this case it is very useful.
+
+The following example assumes that the remote of _your_ github
+repository is called `github` and the remote of the official


I would rename github to origin: it is more standard.

NelleV · 2014-07-11T15:32:03Z

I'll do a PR against your PR.

NelleV · 2014-07-11T19:50:24Z

doc/devel/coding_guide.rst

@@ -135,6 +135,149 @@ C/C++ extensions
  docstrings, and the Numpydoc format is well understood in the
  scientific Python community.

+Rebasing a Pull Request


We should probably add the acronym (PR). It isn't defined anywhere, and is github jargon.

tacaswell · 2014-08-07T02:05:49Z

I think the only outstanding issues is my use of github vs origin for the users repo. I personally detest the use of origin as a remote name, but if consensus is to change it back I will.

QuLogic · 2016-09-14T04:43:59Z

doc/devel/gitwash/development_workflow.rst

+
+    $ git push --force github
+
+which will _replace_ all of the commits under your branch on github


NelleV · 2016-09-16T03:31:46Z

I think you'll have to rebase onto master :)

- this will likely create an annoying conflict, yay

tacaswell · 2016-09-16T03:48:57Z

Decided to try out the 'retarget branch' functionality.

tacaswell · 2016-09-16T03:49:22Z

@QuLogic Is that better wording?

QuLogic · 2016-09-16T03:59:47Z

Looks reasonable.

NelleV · 2016-09-16T04:53:38Z

Thanks!

tacaswell · 2016-09-16T05:11:46Z

🎉 Excited to get this in after so long!

tacaswell mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2014

- wxPython Phoenix #1995

Closed

fariza reviewed Feb 6, 2014
View reviewed changes

tacaswell added the needs_review label Mar 8, 2014

tacaswell added needs_revision and removed needs_review labels Mar 26, 2014

tacaswell added the doc label Apr 17, 2014

tacaswell added the not a blocker label Jun 28, 2014

tacaswell modified the milestones: v1.4.x, v1.4.0 Jul 9, 2014

NelleV reviewed Jul 11, 2014
View reviewed changes

tacaswell modified the milestones: v1.4.0, v1.4.x Jul 12, 2014

QuLogic reviewed Sep 14, 2016
View reviewed changes

tacaswell changed the base branch from master to v2.x September 16, 2016 03:37

tacaswell and others added 8 commits September 15, 2016 23:38

DOC : draft of text for rebasing doc

41e4c82

rest of draft for rebase documentation.

5d0c64d

added numpy link

51bc33a

Small rewrite of the rebase PR

42ec6a5

DOC : address issues with text to improve clarity

bb8525e

DOC : moved rebase docs -> development_workflow

b3d268f

- this will likely create an annoying conflict, yay

FIX github -> GitHub

3c7e539

FIX nitpicks…

2ffb590

tacaswell force-pushed the rebase_doc branch from 35356bc to 2ffb590 Compare September 16, 2016 03:40

tacaswell added 2 commits September 15, 2016 23:43

DOC: remove merge conflict

92f4006

DOC: minor wording changes

9efe5e3

tacaswell modified the milestones: 2.0.1 (next bug fix release), 2.1 (next point release) Sep 16, 2016

NelleV merged commit 0655bc5 into matplotlib:v2.x Sep 16, 2016

mdboom removed the status: needs revision label Sep 16, 2016

tacaswell deleted the rebase_doc branch September 16, 2016 05:10

QuLogic modified the milestones: 2.0.1 (next bug fix release), 2.0 (style change major release) Dec 7, 2016

This was referenced Jun 13, 2017

restore rebase documenation #8398

Closed

Make colorbar compatible accepting a list of axes created via gridspec #8755

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

doc : rebase #2742

doc : rebase #2742

tacaswell commented Jan 18, 2014

tacaswell commented Jan 20, 2014

pelson commented Jan 20, 2014

tacaswell commented Jan 30, 2014

tacaswell commented Jan 30, 2014

tacaswell commented Jan 30, 2014

fariza Feb 6, 2014

tacaswell Apr 28, 2014

NelleV Jul 11, 2014

fariza commented Feb 6, 2014

fariza commented Mar 25, 2014

tacaswell commented Mar 26, 2014

tacaswell commented Jul 9, 2014

NelleV Jul 11, 2014

NelleV commented Jul 11, 2014

NelleV Jul 11, 2014

tacaswell commented Aug 7, 2014

QuLogic Sep 14, 2016

NelleV commented Sep 16, 2016

tacaswell commented Sep 16, 2016

tacaswell commented Sep 16, 2016

QuLogic commented Sep 16, 2016

NelleV commented Sep 16, 2016

tacaswell commented Sep 16, 2016


		$ git push --force github

		which will _replace_ all of the commits under your branch on github

doc : rebase #2742

doc : rebase #2742

Conversation

tacaswell commented Jan 18, 2014

tacaswell commented Jan 20, 2014

pelson commented Jan 20, 2014

tacaswell commented Jan 30, 2014

tacaswell commented Jan 30, 2014

tacaswell commented Jan 30, 2014

fariza Feb 6, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tacaswell Apr 28, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

NelleV Jul 11, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fariza commented Feb 6, 2014

fariza commented Mar 25, 2014

tacaswell commented Mar 26, 2014

tacaswell commented Jul 9, 2014

NelleV Jul 11, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

NelleV commented Jul 11, 2014

NelleV Jul 11, 2014

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tacaswell commented Aug 7, 2014

QuLogic Sep 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

NelleV commented Sep 16, 2016

tacaswell commented Sep 16, 2016

tacaswell commented Sep 16, 2016

QuLogic commented Sep 16, 2016

NelleV commented Sep 16, 2016

tacaswell commented Sep 16, 2016