On 12/05/2013 01:37 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
Consider this scenario:
- Nathaniel submits RADIUS patches that update the API version (from
2.69 to 2.70)
- I have ACI patches that also bump the version (from 2.69 to 2.70)
- Nathaniel's patches gets accepted
- I rebase my ACI patches onto
On 12/09/2013 12:08 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
On 12/05/2013 01:37 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
Consider this scenario:
- Nathaniel submits RADIUS patches that update the API version (from 2.69 to
2.70)
- I have ACI patches that also bump the version (from 2.69 to 2.70)
- Nathaniel's patches gets
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 12:39 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 12/09/2013 12:08 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
On 12/05/2013 01:37 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
Consider this scenario:
- Nathaniel submits RADIUS patches that update the API version (from 2.69
to
2.70)
- I have ACI patches that also
On 12/09/2013 02:50 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 12/09/2013 02:35 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 12:39 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 12/09/2013 12:08 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
On 12/05/2013 01:37 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
Consider this scenario:
- Nathaniel submits RADIUS patches
Consider this scenario:
- Nathaniel submits RADIUS patches that update the API version (from
2.69 to 2.70)
- I have ACI patches that also bump the version (from 2.69 to 2.70)
- Nathaniel's patches gets accepted
- I rebase my ACI patches onto master. Git thinks that the 2.69-2.70
change is
