Re: [PATCH 0/8] Fix some problems with reflog expiration

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

 



On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> By the way, both of these patch series conflict with
> sb/atomic-push-fix, which is in pu. My understanding is that Stefan
> wants to rework that patch series anyway, but if not I would be happy
> to show how to resolve the conflicts.

Heh, I had it already reworked on Friday evening, but forgot to send it out
for review. As mentioned before, sb/atomic-push-fix is a misleading branch name
as it actually enables large transactions [ "large" means > $(ulimit -n) ].

I don't mind reworking that series again on top of either this or the other
patch series you sent out, as I wasn't entirely happy with it anyway.
(Naming is hard)
--
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]