Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 06:23:57AM -0800, Matt Kraai wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 01:03:03AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > But a change to the function signature of feature subroutines is not >> > something I'd like to apply while other series that want to add new >> > features are still cooking. How about doing these two patches as the >> > first thing that goes to 'next' after 1.6.1, and then force other series >> > rebase on top of your change? Alternatively, we could make you wait until >> > other series do settle in 'next' and then apply your change rebased on >> > them, but I think that is probably less optimal. >> >> OK, I'll resubmit the patches on top of 'next' once 1.6.1 is >> released. Thanks for your help, > > is it worth keeping them separate? Just a single patch makes more sense > to me, the interface is much nicer in the latter than in the former. :-) I agree. It should come *first* before other topics that are not in 'master/next' and change the function signature of feature subs of only existing (read: in 'master') ones. This will force gb/gitweb-patch (and anybody else's patch that haven't been submitted, waiting during the -rc period) to be rebased on top of the updated interface, but that's life. -- 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
