Hi, On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Jeff King wrote: > On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 06:24:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > Still, the big fat ![rejected] do seem over the top when I know it > > > really means "stale". > > > > If "stale" can be proven cheaply, I think it would be a very good > > change to introduce [rejected] vs [stale]. > > I think there is still one problem with that: you are not splitting the > cases into "rejected" and "stale". FWIW I think it is perfectly reasonable to say "stale" when you _know_ that it's stale, and "rejected" when you don't know the reason. Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
