Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2011, #03; Fri, 6)
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 7, 2011, 19:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vk4e2wckd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110507014634.GB25771@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 04:22:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> * jk/merge-one-file-working-tree (2011-04-29) 2 commits >> (merged to 'next' on 2011-05-02 at 308fe21) >> + merge-one-file: fix broken merges with alternate work trees >> + add tests for merge-index / merge-one-file > > Hmm, I expected this to end up on maint. Is it worth cherry-picking > (it cleanly applies to maint)?
I was careless while updating the draft release notes. The topic was deliberately forked from a point that is old enough that the topic can later be merged to older maintenance tracks.
Thanks for noticing.
Documentation/RelNotes/1.7.6.txt | 7 ++++--- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RelNotes/1.7.6.txt b/Documentation/RelNotes/1.7.6.txt index 8554918..7f83318 100644 --- a/Documentation/RelNotes/1.7.6.txt +++ b/Documentation/RelNotes/1.7.6.txt @@ -38,9 +38,6 @@ Updates since v1.7.5 * "git merge" learned "-" as a short-hand for "the previous branch", just like the way "git checkout -" works. - * "git merge-one-file" learned to honor GIT_WORK_TREE settings when - handling "both sides added, differently" conflict. - * "git rev-list --count" used with "--cherry-mark" counts the cherry-picked commits separately, producing more a useful output. @@ -84,6 +81,10 @@ included in this release. From: "Junio C. Hamano" <jch@example.com>). (merge jk/format-patch-quote-special-in-from later) + * "git merge-one-file" did not honor GIT_WORK_TREE settings when + handling a "both sides added, differently" conflict. + (merge jk/merge-one-file-working-tree later) + * "git mergetool" did not handle conflicted submoudules gracefully. (merge jm/mergetool-submodules later)