From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: interactive rebase not rebasing Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:31:35 -0700 Message-ID: <20081001183135.GL21310@spearce.org> References: <20080928235013.5c749c6e.stephen@exigencecorp.com> <48E078BF.5030806@op5.se> <20081001010306.01cc34eb.stephen@exigencecorp.com> <48E32BD4.1050107@op5.se> <20081001095225.d28de16a.stephen@exigencecorp.com> <48E396AF.2000100@op5.se> <20081001121321.5761fc7e.stephen@exigencecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Andreas Ericsson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Haberman X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 01 20:34:01 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1Kl6Vf-0000Pf-Pi for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:33:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754217AbYJASbh (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:31:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754197AbYJASbg (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0400 Received: from george.spearce.org ([209.20.77.23]:46720 "EHLO george.spearce.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754108AbYJASbg (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0400 Received: by george.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 43B5E3835F; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081001121321.5761fc7e.stephen@exigencecorp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Stephen Haberman wrote: > > > > I've attempted to do that. Now that I sent in the patch, if you could > > > review it, I would appreciate your feedback. > > > > I'm heading home from work now. I'll look it over tonight or tomorrow > > morning. > > Cool, thanks. > > Question: how taboo is it to just add another test file? > > I can suffer through getting it to work, but a t3409 would be much > easier, and probably easier to read as well as a I could setup my own > DAG instead of hacking onto 3404s. Usually folks prefer to add stuff to an existing test file, but if the DAG is already a mess and you need a different DAG I find it easier to just add new test file. Thus far Junio hasn't pushed back when I've done that. Maybe I'm just lucky. :-) -- Shawn.