On 2020-06-19 at 21:09:33, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Otherwise, this series is the same as v2 except for a rebase (for my > > convenience and Junio's). > > Not mine, though. Keeping the same base is easier to see the > incremental difference. Okay, sorry about that. It does make it more convenient for me eventually (since I get to resolve conflicts more incrementally), but I don't usually have to worry about that until the series hits master, so I can hold off. I'm not rebasing as many patches anymore, so it's less of a problem for me. > It wasn't too cumbersome to rebase back on the same base as what was > queued (and the making sure the result, when merged to 'master', > matches the result of applying all these patches directly on top of > 'master'), though ;-) > > In any case, the updated step 34 made sense to me. Thanks. Yeah, I discovered it the other day when updating another project to deal with a SHA-256 Git, and I happen to be on vacation today, so I thought I'd send out a quick fix. I was surprised to learn that we had no tests for cloning empty repositories, but here we are. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
