On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 12:13:23 AM MST Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Ok ... from the wording I wasn't sure if there wasn't another developer working this. I will pick up that patch and continue. > 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. Thanks that confirmed my reading of the Documentation/gitworkflows.txt.
