From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2010, #03; Wed, 24) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:41:39 +0100 Message-ID: <4CEE3D63.2010701@viscovery.net> References: <7vk4k2rt2m.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 25 11:41:52 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 1PLZGw-0005mF-Cx for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:41:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752117Ab0KYKlp convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:41:45 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:24950 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752040Ab0KYKlo convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:41:44 -0500 Received: from [81.10.228.254] (helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLZGm-0005Nr-6f; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:41:40 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6431660F; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:41:39 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 11/25/2010 10:45, schrieb =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason: > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 04:16, Junio C Hamano wro= te: >=20 >> It is getting ridiculously painful to keep re-resolving the conflict= s with >> other topics in flight, even with the help with rerere. >> >> Needs a bit more minor work to get the basic code structure right. >=20 > Still waiting on input about what exactly needs to be fixed. See > =20 > Is there anything else than that (the builtin.h includes) that you > think needs work? One open question was why you do not want to move 'LIB_OBJS +=3D gettex= t.o' away from the LIB_OBJS section down to the configuration evaluation section, i.e., why gettext.o would be different from block-sha1/sha1.o. -- Hannes