Hi Elijah, On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:22 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * en/rebase-merge-on-sequencer (2019-01-07) 8 commits > > - rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery > > - rebase: define linearization ordering and enforce it > > - git-legacy-rebase: simplify unnecessary triply-nested if > > - git-rebase, sequencer: extend --quiet option for the interactive machinery > > - am, rebase--merge: do not overlook --skip'ed commits with post-rewrite > > - t5407: add a test demonstrating how interactive handles --skip differently > > - rebase: fix incompatible options error message > > - rebase: make builtin and legacy script error messages the same > > > > "git rebase --merge" as been reimplemented by reusing the internal > > machinery used for "git rebase -i". > > > > On hold. > > cf. <CABPp-BFckuONYcGGkCY3BuPypRULmhsk_OFHyYA2E4jM66BfeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Is the "on hold" comment still accurate? And if so, can I ask for > clarification on what the hold is so I can know what action if any I > need to take? The two things mentioned in the linked email that I see > are (1) the need to lower-case part of the subject (which you squashed > in already to create commit 68aa495b590d), and (2) the semantic > conflict between js/rebase-am and my patch, for which you already > squashed my fix into your merge of his series and suggested I not > resend and just let the rerere logic handle it (cf. > <xmqqmunxluj8.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) My sincerest apologies. I really wanted to have a look at them, and then got side tracked every time I checked my mail. The Git mailing list really is a little bit like a fire hose. Will have a look *right now* so as not to forget *again*. Ciao, Dscho > I'm beginning to wonder if I should just resubmit patches individually > or take some other dramatic action as the combined amount of time this > series has been on hold has been quite a bit longer than usual for me. > Suggestions welcome. > > Thanks, > Elijah >
