Neeraj Singh <nksingh85@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> In any case, I've applied them on 0cac37f38f9 and then re-applied >> the result on top of fd008b1442 (i.e. the same base as the previous >> round was queued), which, with the magic of "am -3", applied >> cleanly. Double checking the result was also simple (i.e. the tip of >> such an application on top of fd008b1442 can be merged with >> 0cac37f38f9 and the result should be identical to the result of >> applying them directly on top of 0cac37f38f9) and seems to have >> produced the right result. >> >> \Thanks. > > Thanks Junio. I was worried about how to properly represent the dependency > between these two in-flight branches without waiting for ns/core-fsyncmethod to > get into next. Now ns/core-fsyncmethod appears to be there, so I'm assuming > that branch should have a stable OID until the end of the cycle. > > Should I base future versions of this series on the tip of > ns/core-fsyncmethod, or > on the merge point between that branch and 'next'? Please base it on fd008b1442 (i.e. the same base as this and the previous round was queued on), unless there is a strong reason to rebase elsewhere. Thanks.
