On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Glen Daniels wrote:
I figured that the Android stuff is sufficiently "prototypish" at this
phase that it wasn't hugely important to keep the history, which is why
I didn't merge over from
. If we'd
rather have all the individual commits, I can do that (and if so,
merging an entire repo's commits into another one isn't something I've
done before, so I'd love pointers).
It is vitally important to keep history, especially when multiple contributors are
involved. If its you own prototype and no-one else is involved squash as you wish, but
otherwise it's needed.
That said - we don't need every single commit ;-) Take a look at
I'm not sure what the commit you referenced has to do with it, though,
I'll respond to qmx's other comments in a separate reply.
On 9/20/12 9:38 PM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> Comments inline….
> "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
> Volenti Nihil Difficile
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Douglas Campos wrote:
>> I was reviewing aerogear-android-todo, and noticed some issues
>> 1) Why there is no history on the project? (and consequently,
>> ownership history - passos contributed code hasn't got attribution)
>> - even in cases of big rewrites and start-overs, it's nice to keep the
>> commits, as the history of the incremental changes say a lot about the
>> rationale/train of thought that lead to the final solution
> Really? What's happened? Have we lost our contributions? Weird because
> Why the same is not happening on android? Does anyone need help to do it?
> My suggestion is revert it and rebase with our contributions.
>> 2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by
>> the archetype we are using?
>> 3) Why the API and the example app are intermixed?
>> - Ideally these should be separate repositories, like the iOS version
>> -- qmx
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
> aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev mailing list