Hi Junio, On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > > > Ever since 66a155b (Enable output buffering in merge-recursive., > > 2007-01-14), we had a problem: When the merge failed in a fatal way, all > > regular output was swallowed because we called die() and did not get a > > chance to drain the output buffers. > > OK. Even though I really wanted to see somebody else review this > series as well, I finished reading it through one more time before > that happened, which is unfortunate because I think this is ready to > start cooking in 'next' even though I no longer have much faith in > my eyes alone after staring at this series so many times---you start > missing details. Yeah, well, it is a rather crucial piece of the code. But then, I really tried my best to re-review the series a couple of times (with my primary focus on robustness, not elegance) after working on different tasks for a couple of days. Combined with my long-term dogfooding and my readiness to jump on any breakage I may have introduced, I am relatively confident nevertheless. Thank you so much for your patient reviews! Ciao, Dscho -- 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
