On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Matthieu Moy <[email protected]> wrote: > Paul Tan <[email protected]> writes: > >> Matthieu and Eric: I know I said I will try to re-order the patches to >> put the tests before the implementation, but after thinking and trying >> to rewrite the commit messages I realised it seems really weird to me. >> In this patch series, the implementation is split across the first two >> patches. The first patch should use the old tests, and ideally, the new >> tests should be squashed with the second patch because it seems more >> logical to me to implement the tests at the same time as the new >> feature. However, since the tests patch is very long, to make it easier >> to review it is split into a separate patch which is applied after the >> implementation patches. > > No problem, your version is very good. I was pointing out alternatives, > but not requesting a change, and your reasoning makes perfect sense. > > I had reviewed v4 in details, and checked the diff between v4 and v5. > The whole series is now > > Reviewed-by: Matthieu Moy <[email protected]>
With the POSIXPERM issue[1] addressed (if necessary), patch 3/3 is also: Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine <[email protected]> [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/266265 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
