Closed joshmoore closed 2 years ago
It seems there are lots of commits there that aren't related to the six files being added, e.g. https://github.com/ome/omero-scripts/pull/192/commits/f033b3577c5ac7c74adfc727104ac5f392023c8b but history is complex so it's possible.
So, once this is merged, https://github.com/ome/omero-scripts/pull/191 should merge cleanly and show changes just related to that PR?
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.
Personal preference goes towards #192 or #193 i.e. one of the propositions that preserves commit attributions.
Great, #193 looks nice. #191 is broken (see my comments) but I've fixed those issues in https://github.com/mpievolbio-scicomp/omero-scripts/pull/1 which I can then open against this repo.
just merged mpievolbio-scicomp#1, anything else I can do?
@will-moore : shall we close #191 and #192 then? Just let me know if you want me to rebase https://github.com/mpievolbio-scicomp/omero-scripts/pull/1 there.
Closing in favor of #193
This is another attempt at https://github.com/ome/omero-scripts/pull/191 but preserving the history. Steps taken:
git filter-repo --to-subdirectory-filter omero/annotation_scripts
git merge --allow-unrelated-histories --no-ff ometa/pre-rename
since applying the individual patches withformat-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