From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:42:25 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/24] object_id part 10
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:

> 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.