Stephen & Linda Smith <ischis2@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:20:19 PM MST Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> * jc/wt-status-state-cleanup (2018-09-07) 1 commit >> - WIP: roll wt_status_state into wt_status and populate in the collect >> phase (this branch uses ss/wt-status-committable.) >> >> * ss/wt-status-committable (2018-09-07) 4 commits >> - wt-status.c: set the committable flag in the collect phase >> - t7501: add test of "commit --dry-run --short" >> - wt-status: rename commitable to committable >> - wt-status.c: move has_unmerged earlier in the file >> (this branch is used by jc/wt-status-state-cleanup.) >> > > I note that the jc/wt-status-state-cleanup branch is a patch "for illustration > purposes only" [1]. > > I was about to update that patch to start dealing with the free() function > calls, but noted you added the patch. Do you want me to take that patch and > continue on? Or does someone else have something in progress? I do not plan to. In general, anything that is only in 'pu' is a fair game---when a better alternative appears, or a discussion leads to a conclusion that a change is unneeded, they are replaced and/or discarded. Just think of them as being kept slightly better record of existence than merely being in the list archive, nothing more.
