Antoine Pelisse apeli...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
* rh/remote-hg-bzr-updates (2013-11-18) 9 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2013-11-20 at a36f3c4)
+ remote-bzr, remote-hg: fix email address regular expression
+ test-hg.sh:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
* rh/remote-hg-bzr-updates (2013-11-18) 9 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2013-11-20 at a36f3c4)
+ remote-bzr, remote-hg: fix email address regular expression
+ test-hg.sh: help user correlate verbose output with email
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:19:43PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
* np/pack-v4 (2013-09-18) 90 commits
. packv4-parse.c: add tree offset caching
. t1050: replace one instance of show-index with verify-pack
. index-pack, pack-objects: allow creating .idx v2 with .pack v4
. unpack-objects:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
* jk/pack-bitmap (2013-11-18) 22 commits
[...]
Borrows the bitmap index into packfiles from JGit to speed up
enumeration of objects involved in a commit range without having to
fully traverse the history.
Looks like you picked up my latest re-roll with
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 05:52:37PM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote:
Looks like you picked up my latest re-roll with Ramsay's fix on top.
There wasn't a lot of review on this past round (I'm not surprised; it's
a dauntingly large chunk to review). I outlined a few possible open
issues in the
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Hmm, maybe I missed something, but AFAICS you (or Vicent) never acted on
or responded to my June reviews in this thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/228918
[...]
Granted, the way I verified this was checking whether you renamed
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Looks like you picked up my latest re-roll with Ramsay's fix on top.
There wasn't a lot of review on this past round (I'm not surprised; it's
a dauntingly large chunk to review). I outlined a few possible open
issues in the cover letter, but I'd be happy to
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
Granted, the way I verified this was checking whether you renamed
rlw_xor_run_bit() to something more fitting, so perhaps you just forgot
that one thing but did all the rest.
I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Do we want to try this in 'next' post-1.8.5, or should I try to prod an
area expert like Shawn into doing another round of review?
Yes ;-).
I recall starting to read the series over and then got sidetracked
in the
Vicent Martà tan...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
We are running a slightly older version of the patchset, because we're
still on 1.8.4 and the current reroll doesn't apply cleanly there.
If this could make it to `next` some time
Vicent Marti vic...@github.com writes:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on the name (it
really does look like it is a negation, and the only caller is
ewah_not).
Yes, the name was ported straight from the
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:05:25PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
If this could make it to `next` some time next week, that would work
out great for us, because we may start considering using `next` as a
partial or full deployment on our production machines
I do not think potentially
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 06:58:55PM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote:
I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on the name (it
really does look like it is a negation, and the only caller is
ewah_not).
Hmm, so it really was that one unlucky thing :-)
I don't promise there is only one
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Re-rolling such a big chunk of code _is_ a pain for both me and for
reviewers, so I wouldn't mind switching to fixes on top instead of
re-rolling at some point. But we can do another round or two of re-roll
first.
No, actually I think the plan that you
Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
'-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
'+' are in 'next'.
Hopefully 1.8.5-rc3 that was tagged on Wednesday will be the final
release candidate for this cycle.
You can find the changes described here
15 matches
Mail list logo
