From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] push: Provide situational hints for non-fast-forward errors Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:11:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20120326201122.GA24138@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120320043133.GA2755@gmail.com> <20120323214114.GB18198@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120326192001.GB32387@gmail.com> <20120326195150.GA13098@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vk427nn4v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Christopher Tiwald , git@vger.kernel.org, zbyszek@in.waw.pl, Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr, drizzd@aon.at To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 26 22:11:33 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SCGGL-0003N9-8v for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:11:33 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755635Ab2CZULZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:11:25 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:60178 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754090Ab2CZULY (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:11:24 -0400 Received: (qmail 17052 invoked by uid 107); 26 Mar 2012 20:11:42 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:11:42 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:11:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vk427nn4v.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 Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 01:05:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Your patch is already in 'next', so we will have to build on top rather > > than squashing. So here it is with an actual commit message: > > If the patch were already in 'next', we would have to build on top, but I > thought I kept it out of 'next' because I knew this deserved a bit more > review time. Perhaps I screwed up, or you are reading the history > incorrectly? > > ... goes and looks ... Oops, you're right. I don't know why I thought it was, and obviously I should check before speaking next time. :) > I'm however tempted to keep this follow-up patch as separate without > squashing. Either way is fine with me. BTW, I was on a semi-vacation when Christopher posted the patch, so I missed out on most of the timely review. But I really like how it ended up; it's exactly what I was hoping for when we discussed this a month or two ago. So thanks for working on it, Christopher. -Peff