From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] git-gui - provide commit base to the hooks/pre-commit script Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:00:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20100621050012.GA13043@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <1275965763-18940-1-git-send-email-mlevedahl@gmail.com> <1275965763-18940-2-git-send-email-mlevedahl@gmail.com> <4C1C3288.5000308@gmail.com> <7vvd9drnn4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Mark Levedahl , git@vger.kernel.org, jsixt@viscovery.net, spearce@spearce.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 21 07:00:23 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OQZ7O-00067T-Ub for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:00:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751791Ab0FUFAS (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:00:18 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:46090 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751717Ab0FUFAR (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:00:17 -0400 Received: (qmail 13921 invoked by uid 107); 21 Jun 2010 05:01:05 -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; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:01:05 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:00:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vvd9drnn4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:54:39PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mark Levedahl writes: > > > Given the discussion on the first series (starting with) > > <1275759590-16342-1-git-send-email-mlevedahl@gmail.com>, and the absence > > of objection to v2, I presume this sequence is ok? > > I generally take absense of responses as absense of interest and/or > support, not absense of objection. > > For this particular patch, I am mostly indifferent (i.e. no objection, but > no strong support neither). Ditto. I don't personally have a use, but all of my concerns were answered. -Peff