Re: [PATCH v2 00/24] object_id part 10
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Oct 11, 2017, 10:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq8tgim0dq.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <9e44abcf-abcb-4868-d1cd-2326ea8df3ed@alum.mit.edu>
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
Show 10 quoted lines
> I took a stab at rebasing this patch series on top of current master > using `git-imerge`. I pushed the results to my GitHub fork [1] as branch > `object-id-part-10-rebased`. I didn't check the results very carefully, > nor whether the commit messages need adjusting, but I did verify that > each of the commits passes the test suite. Junio, it might serve as > something to compare against your conflict resolution. > > Michael > > [1] https://github.com/mhagger/git
2f0e14e6 ("Merge branch 'js/rebase-i-final'", 2017-10-09) is where your -rebased series has forked from the mainline. I checked that fork-point out, merged bc/object-id I queued to it, with the help from rerere I earlier taught. The resulting tree was identical to the tip of your rebase.
So hopefully both of us should be good ;-) I do not know about the intermediate steps, though.
Thanks.