Stephen & Linda Smith <ischis2@xxxxxxx> writes: > Junio - > > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 10:27:26 AM MST Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > t7500-commit.sh >> > t7501-commit.sh >> > t7502-commit.sh >> > t7509-commit.sh >> >> These seem to have organically grown and it is very likely that ones >> later introduced were added more from laziness. > > How does the project prefer to handle patches that conflict. Renaming t7501- > commit.sh will conflict with a patch set that I submitted over the weekend > [1]. Should I treat them as totally separate? How about not doing the rename before the more important changes solidify? Alternatively, doing the rename as a preparatory clean-up and building the more important changes on top is also possible. > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 3:36:11 PM MST Junio C Hamano wrote: >> * sl/commit-dry-run-with-short-output-fix (2018-07-30) 4 commits >> . commit: fix exit code when doing a dry run >> . wt-status: teach wt_status_collect about merges in progress >> . wt-status: rename commitable to committable >> . t7501: add coverage for flags which imply dry runs > > I noted that this patch set is similar to the one that I just submitted. Are > you thinking of not using mine (in which case I will drop it)? If not I will > add a patch to fix the committable spelling[2] and re-roll. I think that one that is not even in 'pu' hasn't been looked at for a long time; it is probably a good idea to discard and replace, if you have something working.
