From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:57:52 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Fix some problems with reflog expiration
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)