Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > This, when applied on top of ecbdaf08991, seems to break t5702.30, >> > at least for me. >> > >> > Tip of 'pu' in today's push-out will be broken as it has this patch >> > merged. >> > >> > Can somebody take a look? >> >> I can reproduce this. I'll investigate this further. In the meantime, >> feel free to remove this from pu. > > The test failure is caused by a bug I fixed in [1]. I've verified that > if I apply [1] first, then this, all tests pass. If you do include this > patch in some branch, it should be dependent on [1], but I understand if > you'd like reviewers to look at both this and [1] first. > > I thought I tested this without something that fixes the issue fixed by > [1] and it passed, but apparently that's not true. > > [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20190110193645.34080-1-jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx/ OK, that means that it would be the cleanest to make them into two-patch series, I guess. Let's requeue these two and see what happens. Thanks.
