On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 03:27:28PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Please do not start your patch series from 5/9 when there is no 1/9, > 2/9, 3/9, and 4/9. It is seriously confusing. > > I am guessing that you are trying to split the series into > manageable pieces by going per call graph and codeflow. I think it > is a more sensible approach than a single huge ball of wax we saw > earlier. The later patches are further changes extending the previous series. The first, large patch can be splitted any more - it has alreay been generated by changing the delta code and fixing other functions until the codebase is working again. I didn't wanted to spam the mailing list with the same unchanged patches within a short timeframe. Regards, Martin
