On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> So do you want to queue these on top of the "massive" in 'next', not >>> directly on 'master'? >> >> If they apply on master, master. But I'm confused, are the massive >> changes not going to graduate to master? Because if not, I should >> cherry-pick the safest changes, as there's a lot of good stuff there. > > I think we discussed and agreed that we would ship it in 1.8.3 if we > hear positive feedback from Emacs folks, and my understanding is > that I was waiting for you to give me a go-ahead once that happens. Yeah, and I just said everything seems to be fine. There's only one more patch that would be good to have that I still haven't cleaned up. > It is entirely up to you to add these two on top of that "massive" > stuff, their fate decided by feedback from Emacs folks, or apply > these as "much safer than those we need to hear from them; we can > verify their validity and safety ourselves without knowing the real > world projects that use the program" patches. > > The impression I was getting from your response "I hear it breaks > for some of them without the patch but I haven't seen the breakage > myself" is that it is safer to group 2/2 as part of the rest of the > series, but as I heard in the same message that you heard Emacs > folks are happy with the entire series, so it wouldn't make much of > a difference either way. > > Will apply these two to the tip of the "massive" stuff, and merge > the result before the next -rc. Cool, I think that's the best approach. I'll send the last patch later today. 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