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

Transcriptions of Montalvo Chapters #67

Merged
merged 26 commits into from
Apr 10, 2017
Merged

Conversation

msb81
Copy link
Contributor

@msb81 msb81 commented Apr 10, 2017

I'm with @RJP43 and we are trying to resolve my merge conflicts.

This is @RJP43 from this point forward:
We are going to nuke Madee's local repo. A big problem is that while she has been pulling in from the remote @setriplette fork she did not pull in from the main repo owned by @ebeshero. We need to get the @setriplette fork on track with the main @ebeshero remote repo so then @msb81 and @setriplette can make regular pull requests to the main @ebeshero repo as Madee continues her green scholar work of transcribing the Montalvo chapters. I have made local copies of all Madee's transcriptions and we can add those back in to the fork and issue a second pull request once we get these two remote repos aligned.

@ebeshero ebeshero merged commit 9d54d98 into ebeshero:master Apr 10, 2017
@ebeshero
Copy link
Owner

ebeshero commented Apr 10, 2017

@RJP43 @msb81 @setriplette I believe I've resolved the merge conflict up here at my remote origin repo. What needs to happen next is:

  1. that @setriplette 's fork needs to pull in the changes from the remote origin. And that Madee's local repo also pulls in all changes.
  2. we review this workflow and decide whether we want to continue working in forks. We could try branches inside my repo instead, but however we proceed we need to be very clear on the workflow of how to push and pull in changes regularly.

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.

3 participants