"Eric DeCosta via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Eric DeCosta <edecosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reworked the logic around fsmonitor.allowRemote such that if
> allowRemote is set it will determine if monitoring the remote
> worktree is allowed.
>
> Get remote protocoal information; if this fails report an error else
> print it if tracing is enabled.
>
> Fixed fomratting issues.
The end result (i.e. HEAD^{tree} of the branch you developed these
two patches on) may be good (I haven't checked), but it is not how
we fix problems in an earlier attempt in this project by keeping the
faulty commit(s) on the bottom and piling "oops, that was wrong, and
here is a fix-up" commit(s) on top.
Once you are happy with the end result, use "rebase -i" to clean-up
the history leading to that end result. The goal is to pretend as
if you were a perfect human, more perfect than your actual self, who
came up with an ideal patch without making mistakes that need to be
corrected with "fix-up" commits. In this particular case, you'd
most likely want to end up with a single commit, so squashing them
together and fixing up the log message might be all you need to do.
When you work on a more elaborate topic, you may also want to split
or reorder original commits to present a logical progression towards
the end result. "rebase -i" is a good tool to help you do so.
I am not a user of GitGitGadget myself, but if I recall correctly,
you should be able to force-push the result of such a clean-up to
update the pull-request, to trigger a new iteration to be sent to
the list.
Thanks.
