Phillip Wood <phillip.w...@talktalk.net> writes:
> On 20/03/18 15:42, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> ...
>> As indicated in another reply, I'd rather rebase the --recreate-merges
>> patches on top of your --keep-empty patch series. This obviously means
>> that I would fold essentially all of your 2/2 changes into my
>> "rebase-helper --make-script: introduce a flag to recreate merges"
>>
>> The 1/2 (with s/failure/success/g) would then be added to the
>> --recreate-merges patch series at the end.
>>
>> Would that be okay with you?
>
> Yes, that's fine, it would give a clearer history
With or without the above plan, what we saw from you were a bit
messy to queue. The --keep-empty fix series is based on 'maint',
while the --signoff series depends on changes that happened to
sequencer between 'maint' and 'master', but yet depends on the
former.
In what I'll be pushing out at the end of today's integration run,
I'll have two topics organized this way:
- pw/rebase-keep-empty-fixes: built by applying the three
'--keep-empty' patches on top of 'maint'.
- pw/rebase-signoff: built by first merging the above to 0f57f731
("Merge branch 'pw/sequencer-in-process-commit'", 2018-02-13) and
then applying "rebase --signoff" series.
Also, I'll revert merge of Dscho's recreate-merges topic to 'next';
doing so would probably have to invalidate a few evil merges I've
been carrying to resolve conflicts between it and bc/object-id
topic, so today's integration cycle may take a bit longer than
usual.
