search

ebeshero / Amadis-in-Translation

a project to apply TEI markup to investigate early modern Spanish editions of Amadis de Gaula and their translations into English and French from the 1500s to the early nineteenth century.
http://amadis.newtfire.org
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
4 stars 6 forks source link

fixing bad merge #69

Closed RJP43 closed 7 years ago

RJP43 commented 7 years ago

@ebeshero I have moved all of @msb81 's new transcriptions over to the correct folder and removed the bad folder. I think once this is pulled in others can pull from you and all will be well.

ebeshero commented 7 years ago

@RJP43 Walk through the files that are being overwritten by this merge, and look at the changes--you'll see what I mean.

ebeshero commented 7 years ago

@RJP43 I think the only files I should accept are the files that we don't already have in the Montalvo directory...

RJP43 commented 7 years ago

Well that would be because as @msb81 made those new transcriptions she wasn't aware of the corrected schema lines. Someone closer to the project should reimplement the xml:ids and the schema lines in @msb81 's latest transcriptions.

RJP43 commented 7 years ago

Ok... my only concern being some of those other edited files are actual transcription corrections, but like I said those closer to the project would know more.

msb81 commented 7 years ago

The xml id issue has been there since I started the project. I wasn't sure what the issue was, but it never interfered with me writing so I just left it alone.

Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef

From: Rebecca Parker notifications@github.com Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 9:52:32 PM To: ebeshero/Amadis-in-Translation Cc: Bredice, Madison Suzanne; Mention Subject: Re: [ebeshero/Amadis-in-Translation] fixing bad merge (#69)

Ok... my only concern being some of those other edited files are actual transcription corrections, but like I said those closer to the project would know more.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Febeshero%2FAmadis-in-Translation%2Fpull%2F69%23issuecomment-293754887&data=01%7C01%7Cmsb81%40pitt.edu%7C5a4a6e121caa486330b208d4820fc061%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=AjmSx9CsuPw9w9jzzbjfZUqGnAVu3CrIFMgGue8wO8A%3D&reserved=0, or mute the threadhttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAUWeqEzYV4DXWNXCuMe_VEZz_yZJ9HREks5rvX_ggaJpZM4M7ymH&data=01%7C01%7Cmsb81%40pitt.edu%7C5a4a6e121caa486330b208d4820fc061%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=7km%2BUb7DjHwWgdnIzoxTLQej%2Bh48gtSIKitMHgPB1Uk%3D&reserved=0.

ebeshero commented 7 years ago

@msb81 @RJP43 I think the problem was that you were adding transcriptions on top of old code. But GitHub was designed for problems like this: We should with a little research be able to merge what is new in your files with what is new in mine, but we need to try not to go backwards and lose material. This pull request is going to delete good code we have in place, so I need to figure out how not to let it do that.

@RJP43 We may need a new pull request that comes after a fetch and merge? Can you help me research this? It is easy to see what we are about to lose by letting this pull request overwrite the files in the Montalvo directory. It would be harder and more tedious to correct the files one by one if I pull this in.

ebeshero commented 7 years ago

@RJP43 What I noticed right away are schema line changes, but there may be more--contributions from others in the bodies of the files. I think we need to be merging these directories together rather than replacing one with the other, and we may actually want to invite git's merge conflict markup in the files to help us catch everything those of us inside the project need to repair by hand.

RJP43 commented 7 years ago

Ok... I haven't got out my computer yet but just thinking thru this as I'm waking up here .... deny my pull request... I will reset my head to the main repo. Then to get the files to merge together without much by hand work ... create a branch where you do the work of moving ALL of @msb81 files (even the problematic ones because they seem to have new bits) into the correct folder even replacing the old files with same name. Then when you switch back to master and try to merge the new branch in you will either merge files because not editing same spots or get the markup inside each troublesome file. I think that's the best way... @ebeshero thoughts?

ebeshero commented 7 years ago

@RJP43 Yes, I think that makes sense--We'd be asking Git to perform a merge of two branches that way. Apparently the Pull request wasn't going to do that merging on its own, which is interesting!

RJP43 commented 7 years ago

@ebeshero Here is where this conversation left off.

RJP43 commented 7 years ago

@ebeshero I still think your best bet is moving all of the files from Maddie's Montalvo folder to the correct folder on a separate branch and then go forward with trying to merge the branches allowing git to merge the changes together.

ebeshero commented 7 years ago

@RJP43 Good-- yes, that's what I remember too! I think I set this aside for a quiet moment (like now) to figure it out! I'll make an experimental branch to try the merge.

RJP43 commented 7 years ago

@ebeshero Ok keep me posted. I am going to work on Project remarks.