On 8 September 2013 18:08, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > "Garth N. Wells" <[email protected]> writes: >> The point is that there is no clutter in next in this particular case. >> If there is not clutter in next, I don't see what harm can be done by >> merging next into main in this particular case. > > Less than later in a release cycle, but 4 of these are merge commits > that are not relevant to 'master'. > > $ git log --oneline ..origin/next > 94ad986 Merge branch 'master' into next > 07fe93e Fix another bug related to new interface of the create_symbol > function for quadrature optimisation. > f4b835b Minor fix in unit tests to reflect update in the way symbols are > created. > 9ac3993 Merge branch 'k.b.oelgaard/fix-issue-8' into next > f5fd97e Merge branch 'master' into next > 7d95ce2 Merge branch 'martinal/topic-avg-operators' into next > a2ffbdc Update reference data pointer to > 6ff0839568e13ab77751806f4524e2d050cf05e4.
OK, I thought that git might be clever enough to handle the merge commits elegantly. I've asked the committer to next to follow your instructions to get us back in shape. Garth _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
