On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> And in case anybody is thinking that remote-bzr is really a too fast >>> moving target; even if this managed to land in 'master', it's likely >>> that people were not able to push at all, and in fact, many were not >>> even able to clone in 1.8.2. So, hardly could be considered a >>> regression. Nevertheless, I caught it in time. >> >> You didn't. I am already way too deep into today's 1.8.3-rc0 >> integration cycle and I won't waste a couple of hours work just to >> revert this. > > Oh, I was lucky ;-) I mistook this with the other 9-patch bzr > clean-up series that I applied to 'master' for -rc0. > > Pushing out a tagged-tip takes a lot longer than the normal tip > because a lot more than what people see have to happen on my end. > > Reverting a single patch is simple, but we do not want to do that on > top of "Git 1.8.3-rc0" commit and move the unpublished tag to point > at the revert. > > Which means pretty much everything needs to be redone (one example > among many is that the tagname will propagate to the htmldocs and > manpages repositories, so their unpublished histories need to be > rewound). > > But I didn't have to do that in the end ;-) Yeah, I realized you were talking about that one later on. I haven't heard anything bad from this new branch from emacs developers, so I think it's OK to merge it. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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