This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 8, 2018. It is now read-only.
Fix unexpected fetch_merge plus out status interactions#197
Open
nat-henderson wants to merge 2 commits intojtarchie:masterfrom
Open
Fix unexpected fetch_merge plus out status interactions#197nat-henderson wants to merge 2 commits intojtarchie:masterfrom
nat-henderson wants to merge 2 commits intojtarchie:masterfrom
Conversation
|
@jtarchie I am also running into this problem. Is there anything I can help with to get this merged & released? |
Owner
|
I appreciate the effort to fix it. I no longer support the resource. Please see #166 for more information. |
|
Shoot. Thanks for the explanation. @crstamps2 do you have permissions to merge this, or a fork that is actively supported? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This addresses #196 - there's a clear explanation of the bug there. If you're worried about this solution, let me know - it's working well for us but it might interact oddly with some other workflows I haven't considered.