From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve description of git filter-branch. Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:42:29 -0700 Message-ID: <7v3aqlxs7e.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080315103900.GC14769@ins.uni-bonn.de> <20080320154338.GA4741@ins.uni-bonn.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Ralf Wildenhues X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 20 17:43:48 2008 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 1JcNrJ-0008FD-9a for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:43:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753623AbYCTQmi (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:42:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757293AbYCTQmi (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:42:38 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:38916 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753623AbYCTQmh (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:42:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BFD1A57; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:42:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181011A56; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:42:31 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20080320154338.GA4741@ins.uni-bonn.de> (Ralf Wildenhues's message of "Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:43:38 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ralf Wildenhues writes: > * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:39:00AM CET: >> >> Now that I learned about filter-branch, here's my share of nits with its >> documentation, a couple of language nits and inaccuracies. > [...] > > I noted that this wasn't applied. Is there something (or everything? ;-) > wrong with the patch? No, but I have not see anybody commented on it, so it was hard to tell if there was anything good with the patch, either ;-)