Re: 'next' will be rewound shortly

From: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Date: Jun 27, 2008, 16:12 UTC
Message-ID: <20080627161220.GB6201@leksak.fem-net>
In-Reply-To: <7vzlphvl69.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Hi Junio,

> Following the new tradition we began a few releases ago, I'll rewind the
> tip of 'next' shortly.  Two topics will be kicked back to 'pu' while we
> are at it (jc/send-pack-tell-me-more and js/rebase-i-sequencer).

I wonder why the bugfix commit

	aec7e9cd	Don't append default merge message to -m message

has disappeared or why/if this belongs to js/rebase-i-sequencer.

I noticed this because a test case of sequencer failed during rebasing to pure "master"/"next" without js/rebase-i-sequencer.

I also have a question:
my development branch for the sequencer prototype is based on next,
then:
	* Merge js/rebase-i-sequencer
	* ... development ...

The only reason that makes js/rebase-i-sequencer important (besides
aec7e9cd which is mentioned above), is for the last patch
("Migrate rebase-i to use sequencer") in the patchset that I want to
send to the list.  (Otherwise a lot of work of Joerg Sommer would be
annotated to me.)
So I wanted to
 1. send a patchset based on "master"/"next" without the rebase-i
    feature extentions of Joerg Sommer, and
 2. resend the last patch (the one about rebase-i) based on "pu",
    where js/rebase-i-sequencer is still merged into.
Is this sane?

(The other variant could be that I send the "Merge js/rebase-i-sequencer"
 commit as a patch to the list, but this sounds insane to me.)

Regards,
  Stephan

-- 
Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F