From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SZEDER =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= Subject: Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful? Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 01:10:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20080603231020.GB6588@neumann> References: <200806030314.03252.jnareb@gmail.com> <7v3anv5fy3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vskvv3xmx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080603104009.GA559@neumann> <7vabi22u5h.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080603203924.GA6588@neumann> <7vk5h6189b.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 04 01:11:46 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K3ffK-000403-3D for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:11:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753683AbYFCXKv convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:10:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753637AbYFCXKv (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:10:51 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:56696 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753579AbYFCXKu (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:10:50 -0400 Received: from [127.0.1.1] (p5B133079.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.19.48.121]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu6) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0ML29c-1K3fe01xPL-0004Yw; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:10:21 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vk5h6189b.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/VIHkB0TlcfcmHBYqjqGhYxQ8fVA1DL1DDbWj uatbDMKFXYNi/yTUG+Ee015+6ZJpz8zQ+nFYqMoEqPLGjoHh/I HK6RHuF+ByoPOdSK2lsbQ== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 03:08:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Here is a potential fix. >=20 > The first hunk is the more relevant one; although the second one is a= lso a > fix, it is independent. It is a fix to unnecessarily loosely written= test > that was done in early February. Yes, the first hunk fixes the problem (and the second one does not introduce any new breakage on my system ;) However, I don't really see why the new test failed only at me... Thanks, G=E1bor