Thank you for reconsider my patch! As you said, my implementation is
not good while the idea is not bad.
I checked out the latest git source code and patch it with your
replacement, and it looks nice, I like it.

This patch comes from my real need. And I think someone may need it as
well. To be honest, this is my first submitted patch in my life.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Junio C Hamano <> wrote:
> Jundong Xue <> writes:
>> tomxue@ubuntu:~/mycode/life$ git todo
>> * d768da9 - (in the future: 3 hours later) Meeting with vendor ― Tom
>> Xue (HEAD, master)
>> * 5fcd556 - (in the future: 12 days later) Take my personal holiday ― Tom Xue
>> * 9dd280b - (in the future: 11 months later) 端午节 ― Tom Xue
>> * 4680099 - (in the future: 9 months later) 清明节 ― Tom Xue
>> * 59d5266 - (in the future: 8 months later) 元宵节 ― Tom Xue
>> * b5308da - (in the future: 7 months later) 除夕 ― Tom Xue
>> ...
> I was re-reading the backlog and after looking at it again, I do not
> think what the patch tries to do is a bad thing.  There are changes
> I want to see _how_ it is done, though.
> Especially, the duplication of the exact same logic in the future
> and in the past is an unmaintainable mess.
> I have queued a replacement in 'pu'.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to