From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:17:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation/git-rebase.txt: discuss --fork-point assumption of vanilla "git rebase" in DESCRIPTION.
Message-ID: <8738ba5ggj.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq7g0m75qk.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>

[...]

>> As asked by Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, the newly introduced
>> 'fork_point' term has been described.
>>
>
> I suspect "will be used as a fallback" might be easier to understand
> what is going on instead of "will be used instead", but other than
> that, the new explanation of what fork-point is is a very welcome
> update, I think.

Yeah, sure. Wasn't satisfied with the wording myself.

[...]

> The patch failed to apply

Sorry about it.

> Applying: Documentation/git-rebase.txt: discuss --fork-point assumption of vanilla "git rebase" in DESCRIPTION.
> fatal: corrupt patch at line 38

I rather get:

$ git apply x.patch
x.patch:38: trailing whitespace.
	introduced by <branch>. 
warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.

I've used 'git format-patch' to prepare the patch. Shouldn't it warn
about such things? Or what should I do to avoid such problems in the
future? 

>
> but the fix-up is trivial, so no need to resend.

Thanks.

-- 
Sergey.