On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
>>>> Yeah, I'm fine with a straight revert, too (I think it is fine to keep
>>>> in master, though). I think jk/alloc-commit-id is built right on top of
>>>> the original commit-slab topic, so it should be easy to do either way.
>>>> Thanks for dealing with it.
>>> Whatever we do, perhaps it is worth applying the test below on top?
>> Yeah, thanks.  I think that is a good idea.  I was preparing a patch
>> to tuck your minimum reproduction at the end of 4202, but your version
>> and placement makes good sense.
> OK, I pushed out updated 'maint' and 'master'.  The former merges
> a rebased version of jk/alloc-commit-id in to make the "reorganize
> the way we manage the in-core commit data" topic, and the latter
> reverts the "Use SSE to micro-optimize a leaf function to check the
> format of a ref string".
> Please give them some quick sanity check.
> Thanks.

Thanks both of you; I appreciate your efforts! I've run my suite of
tests against the tips of master and maint and all 681 pass for each.
Looks good to me.

Best regards,
Bryan Turner
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