Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    depth_test
    vispy/vispy#1166
    scatter.set_gl_state(depth_test=True, blend=True, blend_func=('src_alpha', 'one_minus_src_alpha'))
    depth_test=True
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    from glue.config import settings
    settings.BACKGROUND_COLOR = 'black'
    glue_vispy_viewers. BACKGROUND_COLOR
    gluevispyviewers/__init.py
    glue_vispy_viewers/__init__.py
    BACKGROUND_COLOR = 'black'
    VispyDataViewer
    init()
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    glue/config.py
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    @PennyQ - I'm around for the next hour, so let me know if you need any help with finishing up glue-viz/glue-3d-viewer#128
    Penny Qian
    @PennyQ
    @astrofrog I am not sure which parts in the CHANGES.md should I remove?
    Take a look at the diff in the pull request:
    any of the lines in green shouldn't be there in CHANGES.md
    e.g.
    +<<<<<<< HEAD
     +=======
    Do you see those?
    Penny Qian
    @PennyQ
    Yeah I noticed it
    I am often confused about which part should I discard when this conflict happened, I should keep the HEAD part or the master part...
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    In principle you will sometimes need to keep a bit of both :)
    Because normally those areas show bits where there is a conflict, so there are changes in both parts that might be important
    Penny Qian
    @PennyQ
    I feel I make a mess when I keep mess, it’s like Github wants me to make a choice between them :(
    both, typo~
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    Right you shouldn't keep both as-is, you need to combine them into a single block of code that combines the changes from both - then you should get rid of the <<<, === and >>>
    So to take a simple example, say that you have a chunk of code that is:
    a = 1
    Now let's say I change it so that a is now called b, and then I push to master. However, you are working on a version that is older than master and you change 1 to 2
    Penny Qian
    @PennyQ
    yeah, in this case we can’t keep both
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    You will then need to rebase and you will get a conflict:
    <<<
    b = 1
    ===
    a = 2
    >>>
    so then you have to understand what was changed in master, and how it relates to your changes, and replace the whole block with
    b = 2
    Does that make sense?
    Penny Qian
    @PennyQ
    yeah, I need to choose which I want in some cases, so here it’s ok for me just remove those symbols coz I want to keep what’s from the master branch
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    Yep!
    Penny Qian
    @PennyQ
    :) happy to learn more~
    another thing is the squash when rebase
    I treated as discard the commit I don’t want
    but it seems like combine several commits into one...
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog

    To combine several into one, you should replace e.g:

    pick ab4121a blah blah
    pick adfc441 blah blah
    pick a114d3a blah blah
    pick cc433aa blah blah

    by

    pick ab4121a blah blah
    squash adfc441 blah blah
    squash a114d3a blah blah
    squash cc433aa blah blah

    (the first should be pick)

    Penny Qian
    @PennyQ
    yeah~
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    Then once you do that it will ask you later for a commit message, and it will show all 3 or 4, delete all the commit messages and keep only one or make a new one
    Does that seem to work?
    Penny Qian
    @PennyQ
    ha, let me see, I found this will change the commit history, but the code is still there…so it’s not discarding the commit I squash, but combine them into a new commit to make the history more clear?
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    yes, the code will be identical but in a single commit
    it makes the commit history more clean and will basically get rid of the large icon in the history because it is now replaced by the smaller icon
    Penny Qian
    @PennyQ
    hmmm, this makes more sense to me, thanks and I will try the new PR :)
    Thomas Robitaille
    @astrofrog
    You don't need to open a new PR
    Just force push to the existing branch