On 6/13/08, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 1. We're supposed to be in rc freeze, so this is not a great time to
> publish a new feature. ;)
I thought that was what branches were for :) Anyway, I only rarely
get the chance to work on this stuff lately, so I guess I got excited.
> 2. When bringing back an old patch, please please please give at least
> a little bit of cover letter context. "Here is what happened last
> time, here are the reasons this patch was not accepted before, and
> here is {why I think it that decision was wrong, what I have done
> to improve the patch, etc}.
Will do next time.
> IIRC, the situation last time had two issues:
>
> 1. it was a one-off "we're not sure if this is really useful" patch
>
> 2. it was unclear whether paths should be available, and if they were,
> there was an issue of encountering the same hash at two different
> paths.
>
> I assume your answer to '1' is "I have been using this and it is
> useful". And for '2', it looks like you have extended the cache
> mechanism to take into account the sha1 and the path, which I think is
> the right solution (and I am pleased to see it looks like the final test
> covers the exact situation I was concerned about).
Yes, for #1 it is indeed useful. I'm using git-svn on Windows with an
IDE that auto-generates files with CRLF in them, and the translation
of that is something roughly like "ARRGH!" I have to re-fix the
newlines on various different branches at various times and this is
the best way I've found. (Although I can also imagine using it for
whitespace fixes, etc.)
You are correct about #2. I believe I've covered all the complaints
that were brought up at the time.
> (for 1/3):
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
>
> (for the others (and for 1/3, do I get to ack my own patch?)):
> Acked-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
Avery
--
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
