Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> writes: >> Let's redo part-1 on top of 'master' first without such a merge; it >> has been out of 'next' so we can do so easily without wanting for >> the tip of 'next' to get rewound. > > Thanks! > > I saw you've added the "entry.h" inclusion that was missing at > builtin/stash when merging this branch on 'seen'. However, now that > part-1 is based on 'master', the branch is no longer buildable without > this fix. So could we perhaps squash this change directly into the > relevant commit in this series? Yeah, that was the kind of thing I had in mind when I suggested you to "Let's redo part-1 on top of 'master'". I'll mark the topic to be "expecting a reroll" for now, as I am deep in today's integration cycle. Thanks.
