Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I was not following the topic closely, but I think there is a v10 of
> > this series anyway, so you may want to eject it from 'next' in the
> > meantime (I had assumed you were going to do so as part of the
> > post-release rewind, but it looks like that happened already and it got
> > re-merged).
>
> I can do the post-release rewind again ;-)
>
> I somehow had an impression that the topic was more or less done,
> but if it deserves another chance, let's give it one.
>
> Thanks.
I have been on vacation for the last two weeks, sorry for not
replying in time.
I think that is :
time-1: v9 was in next, actually v9 [4/6] will break the CI, but
[5/6] fix it so the CI passed on the whole patchset.
time-2: then v10 was tought a new `--no-separator ` mainly
On the release point, v10 implicitly fixed the problem
in v9 [4/6]
time-3: 2.41 release work begin
time-4: Peff found that the v9 [4/6] merged in next would break
CI and a UBSan problem.
time-5: I wanted to make a full reroll to fix the UBSan problem,
by the way, separate the "--no-separator" to a single
commit, because I thought it cannot catch the last bus
on 2.41 maybe.
I think we are now in a new cycle, maybe we could rewind and use
v11 directlly? Sorry that it may have brought on extra work.
Thanks.
