On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
> > Ever since 66a155b (Enable output buffering in merge-recursive.,
> > 2007-01-14), we had a problem: When the merge failed in a fatal way, all
> > regular output was swallowed because we called die() and did not get a
> > chance to drain the output buffers.
> OK. Even though I really wanted to see somebody else review this
> series as well, I finished reading it through one more time before
> that happened, which is unfortunate because I think this is ready to
> start cooking in 'next' even though I no longer have much faith in
> my eyes alone after staring at this series so many times---you start
> missing details.
Yeah, well, it is a rather crucial piece of the code.
But then, I really tried my best to re-review the series a couple of times
(with my primary focus on robustness, not elegance) after working on
different tasks for a couple of days.
Combined with my long-term dogfooding and my readiness to jump on any
breakage I may have introduced, I am relatively confident nevertheless.
Thank you so much for your patient reviews!
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html