On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:22 PM Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > * en/rebase-merge-on-sequencer (2019-01-07) 8 commits > - rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery > - rebase: define linearization ordering and enforce it > - git-legacy-rebase: simplify unnecessary triply-nested if > - git-rebase, sequencer: extend --quiet option for the interactive machinery > - am, rebase--merge: do not overlook --skip'ed commits with post-rewrite > - t5407: add a test demonstrating how interactive handles --skip differently > - rebase: fix incompatible options error message > - rebase: make builtin and legacy script error messages the same > > "git rebase --merge" as been reimplemented by reusing the internal > machinery used for "git rebase -i". > > On hold. > cf. <cabpp-bfckuonycggkcy3bupyprulmhsk_ofhyya2e4jm66b...@mail.gmail.com>
Is the "on hold" comment still accurate? And if so, can I ask for clarification on what the hold is so I can know what action if any I need to take? The two things mentioned in the linked email that I see are (1) the need to lower-case part of the subject (which you squashed in already to create commit 68aa495b590d), and (2) the semantic conflict between js/rebase-am and my patch, for which you already squashed my fix into your merge of his series and suggested I not resend and just let the rerere logic handle it (cf. <[email protected]>) I'm beginning to wonder if I should just resubmit patches individually or take some other dramatic action as the combined amount of time this series has been on hold has been quite a bit longer than usual for me. Suggestions welcome. Thanks, Elijah
