-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update next
to be current with master
#13913
Conversation
Related to mui#13639.
* Timeout props We could just use the component's timeout props. Tried it myself and it worked :) * [Grow] Condense the demo
* [docs] Fix theme menu link * better hash url generator
* [Tooltip] Fix the property forwarding priority * review
* Change "e; to ' * fix all the occurrences
* [Input, InputBase] fix propTypes of value and defaultValue * add a test
* [Dialog] Add xl maxWidth and demo component * let's merge
…ui#13686) * [docs] Add support for changing react version in codesandbox demos [docs] Change styles Hook API codesandbox to use next version of react and react-dom * [docs] Change react version for Adapting hook API codesandbox demo * add the next flag to all the demos in case of
* ignore touchmove after touchend * only listen to touchmove if touch enabled * test add fireBodyMouseEvent helper
* [docs] Add notistack Snackbar live deme in complementary projects * Fix peer dependecy issue with @material-ui/core * let's merge * add a comment about what next-plugin-transpile-modules is doing
Closes mui#13718 * [styles] Add options definitions for makeStyles * [styles] Improve makeStyles typings test coverage
* Add icon to InputBaseClassKey types * [InputBase] Remove dead disableUnderline property
* [InputBase] Remove props capturing of disableUnderline * [FilledInput] Add conditional logic to remove underline in filled input * Update FilledInput.js * Update FilledInput.js * let's merge
I see. So I’ll just merge and push from the cli. |
So this is now a single commit in |
$ git checkout next
$ git pull upstream/next
$ git merge --ff-only upstream/master
fatal: Not possible to fast-forward, aborting. What am I missing here? |
Looks like 2 days ago #13923 was merged targeting |
No, it wasn't! |
Ok, so |
I'm cherry-picking the commit on master. I still think that we can push force for this time. |
@oliviertassinari I'm confused, you said #13923 wasn't supposed to target |
@pelotom The pull request was supposed to target |
@oliviertassinari Where was the change included in |
Original squashed commit that was merged into Looks like you picked the commit from the PR branch not the squashed commit. The commit on master is missing the PR link so I would still include both commits. It's duplication but I'd prefer the PR link over no duplication. |
@eps1lon next and master should be in sync. I think that we should do:
|
You state this like it's obvious what this means. They currently have one different commit each that results in the same diff but a different commit message. You are now proposing to remove the commit from |
The above command lines were a suggestion, the simplest option I can think of. My point is that we haven't yet merged any pull request intentionnaly on the next branch. So the next branch should be an anchestor of the master branch. It's not the case as we are speaking. Regarding the pull request that was merged on the wrong branch. I have cherrypick it on master at some point. |
Ok so we're not on the same page. Again I direct you to #13913 (comment) where I proofed that the commit you cherry-picked is not the one from Now you still didn't explicitly addressed my proposal. In order to "sync" Your suggestion would result in a loss of information. The commit that included the PR link in the commit message would disappear. The patch is still there because you cherry-picked a different commit but the commit message would be different. Could you acknowledge that because I want to be very clear if we remove information from our commit history. |
Yes, it's not the same one. My mistake. |
It was definitely not my intention to get you to admit a mistake. Obviously git is very hard and I don't seem to know how to do it properly either. Just want to make sure that we do recognize that we will loose the link to the PR and we're willing to make that tradeoff to have a cleaner commit history. Otherwise we can simply rebase |
@eps1lon As you see fit, I have tried the merge from master into next. It looks fine too. |
I have tried merging next into master. It looks even better. |
We can merge next into master. Then reset hard next on master. |
No description provided.