On 02/08/2013 10:11 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2013-02-08 09:45, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> Fine as well. And of curse, if you want to speed thing up and have more >>> control on the final result, feel free to shepherd the pending patches to >>> the agreed form ;-) -- which if I'm not mistaken is: >>> >>> - make the series consist of only two patches, one introducing the >>> feature (complete with documentation and NEWS additions, plus your >>> original test case), and one follow-up patch implementing my >>> testsuite enhancement; >>> >>> - use the '%...%' form, and prefer lower-case for long names (so, >>> '%reldir%' a.k.a. '%D%' and '%canon-reldir%' a.k.a. '%C%'). >> >> Done. I didn't address the canonicalization concern raised by Miles. That >> seems like a bigger issue than this patch series. However, If that naming >> is changing, it must be done before this series lands in a released >> version, or we'll end up with bad comptibility hacks... > > Errm, compatibility... > > Forgot to ask, but should I push out this non-fast-forward to the > experimental/preproc branch? > Yes please. I will rewind it again once I have, as you suggest, fixed my "demo test" not to needlessly fiddle with '/dev/full'.
> That would be 'git checkout experimental/preproc' followed by > 'git push -f origin', right? I did rewrite that branch locally > assuming the old branch was destined for the bin, but I have > never actually done such a rewind of upstream before... > I fear that Savannah forbid such simple for of non-fast-forward pushes. Here is what you can do to still force the rewind: $ git branch -m experimental/preproc x $ git push origin :experimental/preproc $ git branch -m x experimental/preproc $ git push origin experimental/preproc Thanks, Stefano