On 16/09/2007, Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2007-09-15 00:31:09 +0200, David Kågedal wrote: > > > The following series removes the 'bottom' and 'top' files for each > > patch, and instead uses the commit objects to keep track of the > > patches. > > Wonderful! Does this ensure that there's a bijection between patches > and commits at _all_ times, or am I missing something? We should get rid of top.old and bottom.old as well. My question - does this conflict with the DAG patches in any way? I intend to include the them at some point, once I get a chance to test the performance penalty with a big tree like the Linux kernel. > Hmm, wait, no. Right. We also have to create commits for those patches > that don't have exactly one commit object. Not that there'll be many > of them, but better not make assumptions ... Is there any patch which consists of more than one commit? Maybe only uncommit could generate one but I think we put some tests in place. -- Catalin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
