Re: [PATCH v11 00/22] Convert "git stash" to C builtin
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Nov 29, 2018, 12:54 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1811291352480.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq8t1gwano.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
Hi Junio,
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 24 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > > > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> Thanks for your work on this! I have read through the range-diff and > >> the new patch of this last round, and this addresses all the comments > >> I had on v10 (and some more :)). I consider it > >> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> > > > > Thanks. > > > > One thing that bothers me is that this seems to have been rebased on > > 'master', but as long as we are rebasing, the updated series must > > also take into account of the sd/stash-wo-user-name topic, i.e. if > > we are rebasing it, it should be rebased on top of the result of > > > > git checkout -B ps/rebase-in-c master > > git merge --no-ff sd/stash-wo-user-name > > > > I think. > > https://travis-ci.org/git/git/builds/459619672 would show that this > C reimplementation now regresses from the scripted version due to > lack of such rebasing (i.e. porting a correction from scripted one).
Oh, you know, at first I *mis-read* your mail to mean "don't you rebase all the time!", but in this case (in contrast to earlier statements about rebasing between iterations of patch series), you *do* want Paul to rebase.
Let me see what I can come up with in my `git-stash` branch on https://github.com/dscho/git
Ciao, Dscho