From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] t3301: use test_must_fail instead of ! Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:46:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20090219004633.GC25808@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090217163413.GB31297@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20090217202731.GA16586@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090218064121.GA16611@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090218101615.GA23035@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090219003727.GA25808@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Mike Ralphson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 19 01:48:05 2009 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 1LZx5A-0002PF-Ra for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:48:05 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752854AbZBSAqh (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:46:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752822AbZBSAqg (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:46:36 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:59222 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752720AbZBSAqf (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:46:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 18173 invoked by uid 107); 19 Feb 2009 00:46:56 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:46:56 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:46:33 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 01:46:28AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Even if they were in POSIX, I'd suggest not to change the constructs. > rebase is _bound_ to be built in. > > Even if Stephan is not a fan of my recent changes to rebase -i -p (which I > will present on this list once they all work as I want them to), I think I > can talk him into continuing the sequencer effort: he was not discussing > the design in the open, so he should have expected the process to be > dragged out. Having a sequencer in C would make me even happier. ;) -Peff