Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:

> The reason for the "only regression" period is to avoid more
> regressions. If you show me how any of the fixes I sent in this series
> could potentially cause a regression,

I already said that "You can see these patches are so trivially
correct" is not a valid argument. The original patches would also
have been looked correct when they were sent to the list. Things
take time and actual use by the users to mature.

>> You cannot be both.  Which is it?
> I marked the patch that fix a regression as such, I marked the patches
> that are obvious fixes with no possibility of regressions as such, and
> I marked the trivial cleanups with no possibility of regressions as
> such.

I think you mean 6/10 by "the patch that fix a regression", but if
that is the case, please send only the regression fix that cleanly
apply to the tip of 'master', without any other dependencies, with a
proper description of what breaks and how it fixes.

We know you can do better than "certain" and "might".

> In certain situations we might end up pushing garbage revisions (e.g. in
> a rebase), and the patches to deal with that haven't been merged yet.
> So let's disable forced pushes by default.

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