Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Hi Junio, > > On 2015-06-23 00:49, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> * js/rebase-i-clean-up-upon-continue-to-skip (2015-06-18) 3 commits >> - rebase -i: do not leave a CHERRY_PICK_HEAD file behind >> - SQUASH: test_must_fail is a shell function >> - t3404: demonstrate CHERRY_PICK_HEAD bug >> >> Abandoning an already applied change in "git rebase -i" with >> "--continue" left CHERRY_PICK_HEAD and confused later steps. >> >> Expecting a reroll. >> ($gmane/271856) > > Actually, there had been two re-rolls, and v3 seemed to be okay: > $gmane/272037. It also looks as if 726a35ebd^..726a35ebd^2 is > identical with v3... Anything you want me to change in addition? Thanks for a pointer; I think I updated the topic and then forgot to update the reference in "whats cooking". I'll take a look at 272037 and if I have anything further will comment there. > Also: > >> * js/fsck-opt (2015-06-22) 19 commits >> - fsck: support ignoring objects in `git fsck` via fsck.skiplist >> - fsck: git receive-pack: support excluding objects from fsck'ing >> - fsck: introduce `git fsck --connectivity-only` >> - fsck: support demoting errors to warnings >> - fsck: document the new receive.fsck.<msg-id> options >> - fsck: allow upgrading fsck warnings to errors >> - fsck: optionally ignore specific fsck issues completely >> - fsck: disallow demoting grave fsck errors to warnings >> - fsck: add a simple test for receive.fsck.<msg-id> >> - fsck: make fsck_tag() warn-friendly >> - fsck: handle multiple authors in commits specially >> - fsck: make fsck_commit() warn-friendly >> - fsck: make fsck_ident() warn-friendly >> - fsck: report the ID of the error/warning >> - fsck (receive-pack): allow demoting errors to warnings >> - fsck: offer a function to demote fsck errors to warnings >> - fsck: provide a function to parse fsck message IDs >> - fsck: introduce identifiers for fsck messages >> - fsck: introduce fsck options >> >> Rerolled (at v7) and seems more or less ready for 'next'. > > I see that you used `downcased` instead of my `lowercased`, which > makes more sense, but the style of the multi-line `for` loop as per > pu` is still as *I* wrote it... I also saw that you downcased the > first letter after `fsck:` in the commit messages, and touched up the > message of the "report the ID of the error/warning" commit. Do you > want to touch up the `for` loop style in "offer a function to demote > fsck errors to warnings" or shall I send a v8 (it is ready to go: > https://github.com/dscho/git/compare/next...fsck-api)? I often micro-tweak obvious things as I go over the series and applying them one by one, but the for-layout was a kind of change that I usually do not tweak during application (as there are larger chances of causing unneeded conflicts with later patches, and at the point of applying an earlier patch, I may not remember what I learned by skimming later patches in the series) and left there. If the for-layout is the only thing that is questionable thing to fix in what I queued, I think I can locally fix-up without an extra roundtrip. Thanks. -- 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