On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:58:05AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:23:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> * bc/object-id (2015-06-17) 10 commits
> > Is there anything I can do to make this series less painful (e.g. a
> > reroll or such)?
"brian m. carlson" writes:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:23:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> * bc/object-id (2015-06-17) 10 commits
>> . remote.c: use struct object_id in many functions
>> . object-id: use struct object_id in struct object
>> . remote.c: use struct object_id in ref_newer()
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:23:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * bc/object-id (2015-06-17) 10 commits
> . remote.c: use struct object_id in many functions
> . object-id: use struct object_id in struct object
> . remote.c: use struct object_id in ref_newer()
> . transport-helper.c: use struct
Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
'-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
'+' are in 'next'.
Git 2.5 final was tagged and tarballs were pushed out. Accumulated
fixes also went to a new maintenance release 2.4.7. Let's wait and
see for
4 matches
Mail list logo
