Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This is a quick re-roll after Junio's review of the previous > iteration; the previous iteration was posted less than 24 hours ago. > I'm in a hurry,... Open source is not just about pushing new code through other people's throats, but also about the skill to make other people around you to work with you. They may be busy spending time on helping other topics moving forward. Or they may simply be bone-headed ;-). If you are in a hurry, try to spend _more_ time making sure it is easier to review for other people. What were updated, what were kept as they were and for what reason? The purpose of adding the cover letter to the series is to do just that. Without spending that effort and saying "I am in a hurry" give a wrong impression to others: "I cannot tell if this round is better cooked than the previous round without spending nontrivial time reading on it, but chances are it hasn't been much improved during the 24 hours. It may be better use of my time to skip it and work on other topics first. After finishing everything else I can come back---by that time Ram may have sent out another round and reviewing this round right now may become wasted time". Also the series seems to be based on a rather old codebase where we didn't allow reverting the root commit. I tried to apply a first few to understand where these "positive" error status could be coming from, and was stopped by patch conflicts. In [2/10] I think you are propagating errors from run_command() coming back through try_merge_command(), and the change is good for that particular codepath, but I haven't followed all the other codepaths from do_cherry_pick() to convince myself that the exit status from the merge strategy backend are _the only_ positive returns you can possibly get. Have you? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html