Re: [PATCH 1/3] Prepare for non-interactive merge-preserving rebase

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Stephen Haberman wrote:
Stephen, I had to modify the tests a bit to get them to work with how
I implemented the merge-preserving rebase, and also to remove a lot of
the cruft that was previously in there. Hope you're ok with the
attribution in the commit message.

No problem, it looks great.

This is awesome. Thanks for the insanely short turnaround. The
GIT_EDITOR=: hack is neat. I did not think it would be that simple.


Stephen, are you using this in production? How's it turning out?

Shawn, I haven't seen this in any of your branches. Overlooked or
dropped? I think 1-2 are probably master material, while I'm not
so sure about 3/3. Would you prefer a re-send that turns it into
a 2-patch series, adding each test with the functionality it tests?

Let me know how you want it and I'll work something up tomorrow
morning, gmt + 1.

Thanks

--
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux