On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > >>>> Yeah, I'm fine with a straight revert, too (I think it is fine to keep >>>> in master, though). I think jk/alloc-commit-id is built right on top of >>>> the original commit-slab topic, so it should be easy to do either way. >>>> >>>> Thanks for dealing with it. >>> >>> Whatever we do, perhaps it is worth applying the test below on top? >> >> Yeah, thanks. I think that is a good idea. I was preparing a patch >> to tuck your minimum reproduction at the end of 4202, but your version >> and placement makes good sense. > > OK, I pushed out updated 'maint' and 'master'. The former merges > a rebased version of jk/alloc-commit-id in to make the "reorganize > the way we manage the in-core commit data" topic, and the latter > reverts the "Use SSE to micro-optimize a leaf function to check the > format of a ref string". > > Please give them some quick sanity check. > > Thanks.
Thanks both of you; I appreciate your efforts! I've run my suite of tests against the tips of master and maint and all 681 pass for each. Looks good to me. Best regards, Bryan Turner -- 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
