From: Kyle J. McKay Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:15:53 GMT Subject: Re: maintainer question: config http..* patch administrivia Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v7ggp6qdf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Jul 17, 2013, at 10:35, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Kyle J. McKay" writes: > >> perhaps it would be more convenient for you if I re-released the >> following patch series: > > If "These build on top of each other in this order", then it is > easier for me to manage if they were in a single series. Yup. They build on one another so each requires the previous. Will keep them in a single series. > If f1ff763a (http.c: fix parsing of http.sslCertPasswordProtected > variable, 2013-07-12) is already solid and need no further tweaking, > it would be wise not to include the patch in any of your reroll in > any case. Instead, just build your series on top of that commit, > and make it clear that the series is meant to apply on top of that > commit in the cover letter [0/n] of the series, or after "---" line > of the first patch [1/n] in the series. Got it. Will do. f1ff763a looks solid to me: Reviewed-by: Kyle J. McKay And earlier: On Jul 12, 2013, at 12:05, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] http.c: fix parsing of > http.sslCertPasswordProtected variable > > this change looks good. > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder so I will drop it from any future series and just refer to it in the cover letter as you suggest. > As to allowing GIT_SSL_CERT_PASSWORD_PROTECTED=no, I agree that it > does not belong to the http.*. configuration series Agreed. Will not include it in any future http.*. series. > If the other patches have any textual dependency, you can > make it [1/n] of your series and we can treat it just like f1ff763a, > that is, make sure it is solid regardless of the rest of the series, > and make it advance before the remainder of the series, so that we > can still replace http.*. implementation on top of these two > freely. Got it. Will do that and keep it in a single series. Thanks for the direction, Kyle