Re: [PATCH] string_list: Add STRING_LIST_INIT macro and make use of it.
- From
Thiago Farina <tfransosi@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 10, 2010, 05:01 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTimWpEmaLrRK0YoM2BA7_VU3FIsKr3uq0utd5n6q@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20100707151956.GA1529@burratino>
Hi Jonathan,
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Hi Thiago, > > Thiago Farina wrote: > >> I see that no one commentted in the patch, but I can't see it on >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=summary, so I'm not sure if it >> was accepted. >> >> What is the easiest way to verify if the patch was committed? > > Good question. When no one comments on a patch, that is usually > a bad sign. In this case, I think the patch is good and I was too > lazy to comment on it (sorry). > > | $ git log --oneline --author=Thiago origin/pu > | 183113a string_list: Add STRING_LIST_INIT macro and make use of it. > | [...] > | $ git branch tf/string-list-init 183113a
How did you figure out the part "tf/string-list-init"? The first step doesn't seem to give any hint about that.
> | $ git branch -r --contains tf/string-list-init > | origin/pu
Now it shows origin/master, origin/next and origin/pu, so I assume it's all these three branches.
Show 32 quoted lines
> | $ > > So it has been queued in "pu" but not graduated to "next" yet. > > Side note. From the description of the "pu" branch in > origin/todo:MaintNotes > > The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in > "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above > definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this > branch will contain quite experimental and obviously > broken stuff. > > it might sound like Junio thinks your patch is obviously broken! > I suspect that description of "pu" is intended for testers > (meaning: try this branch only if you found "next" too boring and > like writing bug reports) rather than patch authors[1]. > > Especially during a release candidate period (which this is), > promising new features are often queued to "pu" and only merged to > "next" when Junio has had time to look them over again. > > HTH, > Jonathan > > [1] Maybe it could be clarified: how about inserting "sometimes" > before "contain"? > > ... you can tell that this > branch will sometimes contain quite experimental and > obviously broken stuff. >