Skip to content
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

ometa with history #192

Closed
wants to merge 278 commits into from
Closed

ometa with history #192

wants to merge 278 commits into from

Conversation

joshmoore
Copy link
Member

This is another attempt at #191 but preserving the history. Steps taken:

  • used filter-repo to make the move all of the user-scripts history in the target subdirectory
    • git filter-repo --to-subdirectory-filter omero/annotation_scripts
    • This wouldn't work if we were merging into existing directories
  • deleted the extra files towards the end
    • we could do this earlier if desired.
    • and potentially collapse all historical commits into a single one.
  • re-applied the final cleanups
  • merged into my fork with git merge --allow-unrelated-histories --no-ff ometa/pre-rename since applying the individual patches with format-patch/am doesn't work with merge commits sadly.

Note: this is likely something that we should make easier in the future.

cc: @will-moore @CFGrote @sbesson

Will Moore and others added 30 commits December 18, 2012 21:55
Fix headers of scripts to match coding standard.
Group thumbs by tag (only show each thumb once)
math.ceil retuns a float and so canvasHeight is a float which causes an error in PIL.
Trying to minimize the information in these files
so as to reduce the amount of "drift" that can occur
between this repo and possible forks.
@will-moore
Copy link
Member

It seems there are lots of commits there that aren't related to the six files being added, e.g. f033b35 but history is complex so it's possible.

So, once this is merged, #191 should merge cleanly and show changes just related to that PR?

@joshmoore
Copy link
Member Author

It seems there are lots of commits there that aren't related to the six files being added

Those are gone in #193

once this is merged, #191 should merge cleanly and show changes just related to that PR?

No. Only one of #191, #192 (this), or #193 should be merged. If any changes are pushed to one, the others can/should be updated.

@sbesson
Copy link
Member

sbesson commented Jan 12, 2022

Personal preference goes towards #192 or #193 i.e. one of the propositions that preserves commit attributions.

@will-moore
Copy link
Member

Great, #193 looks nice. #191 is broken (see my comments) but I've fixed those issues in mpievolbio-scicomp#1 which I can then open against this repo.

@CFGrote
Copy link
Contributor

CFGrote commented Jan 12, 2022 via email

@joshmoore
Copy link
Member Author

@will-moore : shall we close #191 and #192 then? Just let me know if you want me to rebase mpievolbio-scicomp#1 there.

@joshmoore
Copy link
Member Author

Closing in favor of #193

@joshmoore joshmoore closed this Jan 17, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.