Eric D <eric.decosta@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Well, needless to say I wasn't expecting GitGitGadget to do what it > did.I had squashed things down to just two commits and forced-pushed > the second commit thinking that just the relevant stuff from the > second commit would show up in the next patch. Obviously that didn't > happen. Sorry about that. Oh, sorry to hear that. If your ideal "logical progression" needs two commits, then please do present the series that way. What GGG sent out was apparently not that (i.e. the same one from v1 with full of fix-ups for it in 2/2).
