Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | > My plan was to do this merge yeasterday, but real life
intervened.
| > | | You should have started with this instead of merging the most
| > recent patch.
| > Why?
| > The recent path was ortogonal to the first.
| | Because I have to do a lot of manual merge with trunk. You have also
| committed partially the patch we are discussing right now.
Yes. To understand the way of things I had to pull it apart.
(Still it is the later break up of the patch that create problems for
you now, not the merge/commit of the last patch first.)
OK.
Unless you extract the remaing bits from the patch, I will do so quite
soon. (Most likely tonight.)
OK, I'll let you handle that then.
I have synced my tree with trunk now so it should be easy to merge to trunk.
Abdel.
