Re: Evaluation of ref-api branch status

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 12/05/2011 07:26 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> My reading of your summary suggests that it would be easiest to drop the
>> three mh/ref-api* topics from my tree, especially the 'refs: loosen
>> over-strict "format" check' band-aid patches, and re-queue a re-roll from
>> you.
>
> OK, then, I will try to re-roll the series on top of master, and build
> the equivalent of your quick-fix into the logical point in the series.

These quick-fixes were necessary _only_ because the queued topics predate
the real fix already in 1.7.8 (and I generally refuse to criss cross merge
from master to topics), so I expect you won't need their equivalents if
the topic is rebased on top of 1.7.8

> ... How much time to I have to work on this
> while still leaving enough time to comfortably integrate it into 1.7.9?

I am hoping we can have rc0 very early next year [*1*].


[Reference]

*1* https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=jfgbl2mrlipp4pb6ieih0qr3so%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Los_Angeles

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]