Henning Schild <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I think 1 and 2 can be seen as somewhat unrelated to the gpgsm feature, > they are more general refactoring. So i think picking them is a good > idea. It will make the series shorter and ease review in the next round. Surely, resending from patch 3 and upwards labelled as "add support for gpgsm", saying that the topic depends on a different topic branch named $X in my tree (after $X actually gets pushed out, preferrably as part of 'next'---which is a promise that the changes won't see any more drastic rewrites), is a good approach. Thanks.
