On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> So do you want to queue these on top of the "massive" in 'next', not
>>> directly on 'master'?
>> If they apply on master, master. But I'm confused, are the massive
>> changes not going to graduate to master? Because if not, I should
>> cherry-pick the safest changes, as there's a lot of good stuff there.
> I think we discussed and agreed that we would ship it in 1.8.3 if we
> hear positive feedback from Emacs folks, and my understanding is
> that I was waiting for you to give me a go-ahead once that happens.

Yeah, and I just said everything seems to be fine. There's only one
more patch that would be good to have that I still haven't cleaned up.

> It is entirely up to you to add these two on top of that "massive"
> stuff, their fate decided by feedback from Emacs folks, or apply
> these as "much safer than those we need to hear from them; we can
> verify their validity and safety ourselves without knowing the real
> world projects that use the program" patches.
> The impression I was getting from your response "I hear it breaks
> for some of them without the patch but I haven't seen the breakage
> myself" is that it is safer to group 2/2 as part of the rest of the
> series, but as I heard in the same message that you heard Emacs
> folks are happy with the entire series, so it wouldn't make much of
> a difference either way.
> Will apply these two to the tip of the "massive" stuff, and merge
> the result before the next -rc.

Cool, I think that's the best approach. I'll send the last patch later today.


Felipe Contreras
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

Reply via email to