On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 07:52:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I think this is OK, and I do not mind if it gets applied. But what I was > > hinting at in my earlier mail was that we might want to do this (I have > > it as a separate patch on top of your 3/6 here, but it would make more > > sense squashed in): > > I would prefer to see a preparatory patch to teach mk_test/mk_empty > to _always_ take the new name (i.e. the result of your patch) and > then do whatever new things on top. I think that is what my patch does (it is meant to come at the point of 3/6, and then the rest would need to be rebased to just use "mk_test" instead of "mk_test_with_name"). > By the way, I am planning to _not_ look at new stuff today. I'd > rather see known recent regressions addressed (and unknown ones > discovered and squashed) before we move forward, and I would > appreciate if regular contributors did the same. Yeah, I have several to look at (the "subdir/" in gitattributes is the biggest one, I think). -Peff -- 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