Re: [PATCH 0/8] Fix some problems with reflog expiration
- From
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
- Date
- Feb 9, 2015, 18:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAGZ79kak+K+ZquHoPLra+ABbtxWQLLuEj+z049sACHvjA2oZqg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1423473164-6011-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> By the way, both of these patch series conflict with > sb/atomic-push-fix, which is in pu. My understanding is that Stefan > wants to rework that patch series anyway, but if not I would be happy > to show how to resolve the conflicts.
Heh, I had it already reworked on Friday evening, but forgot to send it out for review. As mentioned before, sb/atomic-push-fix is a misleading branch name as it actually enables large transactions [ "large" means > $(ulimit -n) ].
I don't mind reworking that series again on top of either this or the other patch series you sent out, as I wasn't entirely happy with it anyway. (Naming is hard)