On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On second thought, why hold patches back, lengthen the worktree-move
>> series and make it a pain to review? I moved a few patches from
>> worktree-move into this series and I took two other out to create
>> nd/error-errno. So I'm going to take more patches out of it, creating
>> two bite-sized series, to be sent shortly.
>>
>> The first one is purely cleanup (ok, 1/7 is not exactly cleanup)
>>
>> [1/7] completion: support git-worktree
>> [2/7] worktree.c: rewrite mark_current_worktree() to avoid
>> [3/7] git-worktree.txt: keep subcommand listing in alphabetical
>> [4/7] worktree.c: use is_dot_or_dotdot()
>> [5/7] worktree.c: add clear_worktree()
>> [6/7] worktree: avoid 0{40}, too many zeroes, hard to read
>> [7/7] worktree: simplify prefixing paths
>
> Where are these patches designed to apply?
>
> It appears that this depends on something in 'next' (probably
> nd/worktree-various-heads topic?)
Yes. Sorry I forgot to mention that. Though if you move 2/7 to
nd/worktree-various-heads (and deal with some conflicts in worktree.c)
then it may become independent.
--
Duy
--
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
