Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
>> I incorrectly assumed that ignore_merges was about revision
>> traversal, but now I think it's only diff output from 'git log' (and
>> possibly others).
Yeah, I realized the same after I wrote the response last night and
went to bed. I am glad you figured all ou
Sorry, I meant to CC the list. See below.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano writes:
>>
>> It seems to have some interaction with your other topic, though.
>> These two patches alone will pass
Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
> Do you want a reroll with updated commit messages (the missing "avoid"
> above, the dropped "seems like" about the prefix in 1/2)?
Nah, I've already queued them with log message tweaks. Thanks for
asking, though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
>> Also re-initializing rev_info fields to the same values already set in
>> init_revisions().
Oops, that should have been " _avoid_ re-initializing".
> I suspect that
> explicit initialization to revs.ignore
Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
> While walking the revision list in get_patch_ids and cmd_cherry, we
> ignore merges by checking if there is more than one parent. However,
> since the revision walk was initialized with revs.ignore_merges = 1,
> this would never happen. Remove the unnecessary check
5 matches
Mail list logo
