On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:36:36PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 08:24:21AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > * ab/various-leak-fixes (2022-11-08) 18 commits > >> > (merged to 'next' on 2022-11-18 at 8828bb7161) > >> > ... > >> > (this branch is used by ab/merge-index-prep.) > >> > >> > * pw/rebase-no-reflog-action (2022-11-09) 2 commits > >> > (merged to 'next' on 2022-11-14 at 790dadc8d3) > >> > ... > >> > (this branch is used by ab/merge-index-prep.) > >> > >> The other topic referred to is not described anywhere, and not part > >> of 'seen'. Intended? > > > > It was merged intentionally via 790dadc8d3 (Merge branch > > 'pw/rebase-no-reflog-action' into next, 2022-11-14) as you note, though > > I'm not sure why the description from 790dadc8d3 didn't make it into the > > WC report. > > > > In any case, the description I went with is: > > > > Avoid setting GIT_REFLOG_ACTION to improve readability of the > > sequencer internals. > > Sorry, but the question was about ab/merge-index-prep that does not > exist in the report and not in 'seen'. > > For now, I'll ignore that phantom user of these two topics. It can > come back when dust settles ;-). Ah, yes, I remember this topic. It's from [1], and it does indeed use ab/various-leak-fixes and pw/rebase-no-reflog-action (cf. [2]), which apparently isn't quite sufficient (cf. [3]). If I recall correctly, it had some conflicts when queuing, so I punted on it (because at the time when [2] was written the correct base(s) were not known). Thanks, Taylor [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-v9-00.12-00000000000-20221118T110058Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/Y3gVekgT7jLibjWo@nand.local/ [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/221119.86o7t3ds49.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
