On 03/03, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > As I was advocating for this series to go into 'next' without a large > > refactor of this series, I'll put my money were my mouth is and try to > > make the cleanups and fixes required, though without trying to avoid > > further external process calls, or changing the series around too > > much. > > Thanks for a well-written summary. One thing that is missing in the > write-up is if you kept the same base (i.e. on top of eacdb4d24f) or > rebased the series on top of somewhere else. I'd assume you built > on the same base as before in the meantime (I'll know soon enough, > when I sit down on a terminal and resume working on the code ;-) Right, I forgot mentioning that. Yes it is still based on eacdb4d24f, as there was no good reason to change that.
