Re: [PATCH 11/10] allow forcing index v2 and 64-bit offset treshold

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

 



Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > This is necessary for testing the new capabilities in some automated 
>> > way without having an actual 4GB+ pack.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > I should write some tests... when I have more time.
>> 
>> It appears everybody is short of time.  I am having two
>> troubles.  Nobody seems to have positive nor negative reports or
>> comments on what are cooking in 'next' so nothing can graduate,
>> and I am behind list discussions on certain areas myself.
>
> At least my latest patch series received two positive reviews.  ;-)

They are _not_ even in 'pu'.  I am talking about things that
have been cooking.

>> > ddiff --git a/t/Makefile b/t/Makefile
>> 
>> ???
>
> Remnant of a change to that file which was later reverted but mtime 
> doesn't match the index.

Double 'd'?

-
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]