Hi Junio, On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Carlo Arenas <care...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:07 AM Johannes Schindelin > > <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> > >> Unfortunately, this is _still_ incorrect. > > ... > > Just to clarify, I think my patch accounts for that (haven't tested > > that assumption, but will do now that I have a windows box, probably > > even with mi-alloc) but yes, the only reason why there were references > > to NEDMALLOC was to isolate the code and make sure the fix was > > tackling the problem, it was not my intention to do so at the end, > > specially once we agreed that xmalloc should be used anyway. > > ... > > apologize for the delays, and will be fine using your squash, mine, > > the V6 RC (my preference) or dropping this series from pu if that > > would help clear the ugliness of pu for windows > > So,... have we seen any conclusion on this? Can any of you guys > give us a pointer to or copies of the candidate to be the final > solution of this topic, please? I still need https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/719beb813e4f27f090696ce583df3e5f3c480545 and https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/3369c322bbd95820b971701fef7db44b26dd826f to fix that part in Git for Windows' `shears/pu` branch (i.e. the continuously rebased patch thicket). Ciao, Dscho
