Re: [RFC 0/2] explicitly support or not support --exclude-promisor-objects

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] explicitly support or not support --exclude-promisor-objects
From: Matthew DeVore <matvore@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Matthew DeVore <matvore@xxxxxxxxxx>, git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pclouds@xxxxxxxxx, peff@xxxxxxxx, jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx, jeffhost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <xmqqmur5s1y9.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
References: <cover.1540256910.git.matvore@google.com> <xmqqmur5s1y9.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
User-agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)



On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Thanks; both patches make sense.

As the problematic feature appeared in 2.17.x track, I'll see if I
can easily make it ready to be merged down to maint-2.17 track later
when somebody wants to.


Great. Thank you for the review.

References:
- [RFC 0/2] explicitly support or not support --exclude-promisor-objects
  - From: Matthew DeVore
- Re: [RFC 0/2] explicitly support or not support --exclude-promisor-objects
  - From: Junio C Hamano

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] rebase (autostash): use an explicit OID to apply the stash
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] reset: warn when refresh_index() takes more than 2 seconds
Previous by thread: Re: [RFC 0/2] explicitly support or not support --exclude-promisor-objects
Next by thread: [PATCH] Documentation/config.txt: fix typo in core.alternateRefsCommand
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Kernel Development] [Gcc Help] [IETF Annouce] [DCCP] [Netdev] [Networking] [Security] [V4L] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Fedora Users]

Powered by Linux