Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

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

 



Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> writes:

> On 29.04.16 23:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Well, didn't I do exactly the above much earlier and discarded it
>> because that breaks the definition of "diff"?  Or is this doing
>> something differently?
>
> Yes, and I try to sneak it in anyway ;-)
>
> I spend some time debugging how to get t6038 passed, and need
> some more time.
>
> If 10/10 is a no-go (and it probably should be),
> does it make sense to keep 1/10..4/10 and discard 5..10 for the moment ?

Earlier patches in the series certainly felt alright.  I do not
remember noticing where it went in a strange direction to be honest.
--
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]