On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> 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
Ack, I'll give it a shot. I did that first but hopefully the trick is in the magic git -M option. Tamas _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
