Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] A natural solution to the @ -> HEAD problem

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 2, 2013, 17:25 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2M0A_ecfFfD_9hYQUvHSXMup6Whpn80rs741Lu1-ytcg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0=osd8jQYfHcwO8=C_sMNgPj59Th=+tpfZfp7FeopMDyg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras (3):
>>   t1508 (at-combinations): simplify setup
>>   t1508 (at-combinations): test branches separately
>>   t1508 (at-combinations): improve nonsense()
>>
>> Ramkumar Ramachandra (6):
>>   t1508 (at-combinations): increase coverage
>>   t1508 (at-combinations): document @{N} versus HEAD@{N}
>>   t1508 (at-combinations): test with symbolic refs
>
> Can we just okay these six now, and drop the rest?

I'm generally OK with them, but the one for 'symbolic refs' is relying on a symbolic ref named '@', so it would immediately conflict with my patch series.

-- 
Felipe Contreras