From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miklos Vajna Subject: Re: [BUG?] git-merge appends extra string to user's message? Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:13:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20091202171302.GZ31763@genesis.frugalware.org> References: <20091202192030.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> <7veindi9pe.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xwxKudPUn/iIKJJG" Cc: Nanako Shiraishi , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 02 18:13:13 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NFslJ-0000Co-HM for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:13:09 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755227AbZLBRM6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:12:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755188AbZLBRM5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:12:57 -0500 Received: from virgo.iok.hu ([212.40.97.103]:48592 "EHLO virgo.iok.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755187AbZLBRM5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:12:57 -0500 Received: from kag.elte.hu (kag.elte.hu [157.181.177.1]) by virgo.iok.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE805809B; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:13:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from genesis.frugalware.org (frugalware.elte.hu [157.181.177.34]) by kag.elte.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1CE42F0A; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:13:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by genesis.frugalware.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 51CAF1240011; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:13:02 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7veindi9pe.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --xwxKudPUn/iIKJJG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 09:09:49AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I am still in favor, and I think we should do this change. I know Miklos > said it is intentional, but I think he merely means "The version rewritten > in C does so intentionally because the version before rewrite did so", not > necessarily because "the version before rewrite did so intentionally with > good reasons." Exactly. > How does this look? Looks fine. --xwxKudPUn/iIKJJG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksWoB4ACgkQe81tAgORUJbuHwCfeAQEfD276JdsaVetqqadGtHb 7Q4An2sUCLGYwdS27Pa6iFFFtDTcdGYa =Hl2n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xwxKudPUn/iIKJJG--