On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Additionally to that I needed to switch the order of arguments for the >> parallel processing calls, too, to make it compile again. > > That sounds as if the previous one that was queued did not compile, > but I didn't recall seeing such breakage. Also comparison between > corresponding patches did not show such a change, either. > > But perhaps ... > >> I assume I just did that work twice as the previous version >> ought to compile, too. > > ... means that you didn't need such a switch after all, and the > re-sent series didn't have it. My local state has had the switch, and I needed to make it before sending out the latest version. I do not recall doing that to the previous version, but that version is fine, too. Which means I may have missed some review comment (if any) or that I am forgetting things (I was on holidays for 3 weeks, barely touching an electronic device). > > I am just making sure that I got the right version in my tree, so > please don't behave as if I am accusing you that you advertised that > you did more work than you actually did and go defensive ;-) It should not sound as if I go defensive by being accused. I just want to point out I may have missed a thing on my end, so double caution for reviewers may be warranted. It was badly worded though. > If the > reason I didn't see one kind of change in the series I received is > because it didn't have to be done and the description mistakenly > said that such a change is included, that is perfectly fine. > > Thanks. Thanks, Stefan -- 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