>>> On 06.02.15 at 13:54, <tamas.leng...@zentific.com> wrote: >> Did you look at the resulting patch to see what happened? It didn't >> remove the mem_event stuff, but adjusted it enough to become the >> vm_event one while removing the previously added vm_event part >> again. Another argument against this approach imo. > > Hm, that is some strange git behavior. I'll reshuffle things in the > next iteration to have most everything in the renaming patch.
Considering that Andrew too seems to think that this 3 stage approach is undesirable, I think you'd better go the "git mv" route for the next version. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
