Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> I could revert and discard [4-6/6] of the previous iteration out of >>> 'next' and have only the first three (which I thought have been >>> adequately reviewed without remaining issues) graduate to 'master', >>> if it makes it easier to fix this update on top, but I'd rather not >>> to encourage people to form a habit of reverting changes out of >>> 'next'. >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> I totally agree that reverting changes out of next is undesirable. I >> will do a reroll on top of 'next' with only those incremental (new) >> patches. > > OK, so the first 3 patches are now in 'master', and the remainder of > the previous series have been discarded. > > Thanks. Oh, that simplifies things. I will re-roll on top of 'master' as the starting point for the other remaining patches instead of using 'next' as I suggested earlier.
