From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Cc: Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] t3404 incremental improvements
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:02:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqtxihr1kv.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cRM_j7KOKG+YS1aTqz7suDY5LC7kh5-oP5H-GAenUqq-w@mail.gmail.com> (Eric Sunshine's message of "Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:17:03 -0400")
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>>
>>> This set of patches was meant to be a re-roll of [1] addressing Junio's
>>> comments, however [1] graduated to 'next' before I found time to work on
>>> it further, so these are instead incremental patches atop 'next'.
>>
>> Just FYI, 'next' will be rewound once the upcoming release is done,
>> so we have a chance to rewind and squash.
>
> How would we go about this? Is there something I can do to streamline
> the squashing?
>
> Unfortunately, the various fix-up patches do not have a one-to-one
> correspondence to the original three patches in 'next'.
The most stream-lined way would be to send a replacement series
early next week, by which time hopefully the 1.8.4 final is out; as
long as the end-results of applying the series are the same, we know
that the new code we will be using is the same as the code already
in 'next' that people have been testing.
That way, there is no risk of me screwing up while trying to wiggle
the existing patches and ending up with a split that do not match a
logical progression of the series you would expect to see.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-22 19:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-21 19:12 [PATCH 0/3] t3404 incremental improvements Eric Sunshine
2013-08-21 19:12 ` [PATCH 1/3] t3404: preserve test_tick state across short SHA-1 collision test Eric Sunshine
2013-08-25 5:55 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-08-25 7:53 ` Eric Sunshine
2013-08-25 8:53 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-08-26 5:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-08-21 19:12 ` [PATCH 2/3] t3404: make tests more self-contained Eric Sunshine
2013-08-21 23:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-08-21 19:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] t3404: simplify short SHA-1 collision test Eric Sunshine
2013-08-21 23:25 ` [PATCH 0/3] t3404 incremental improvements Junio C Hamano
2013-08-22 18:17 ` Eric Sunshine
2013-08-22 19:02 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqtxihr1kv.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.