Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2013, #08; Tue, 28)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2013, #08; Tue, 28)
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 10:29:13 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7v4ndlvgnq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51a56e2db218d_807b33e18100177@nysa.mail> (Felipe Contreras's message of "Tue, 28 May 2013 21:55:41 -0500")

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> * fc/makefile (2013-05-26) 5 commits
>>  - build: do not install git-remote-testpy
>>  - build: add NO_INSTALL variable
>>  - build: cleanup using $<
>>  - build: cleanup using $^
>>  - build: trivial simplification
>>  (this branch is used by fc/remote-helpers-use-specified-python.)
>
> No, these are independent.

By the way, I dropped the order-only one and I explained my
reasoning for doing so, but I haven't heard back from you.

As I haven't used the order-only dependencies nor '|' myself so far
(primarily because I have not seen a case where it was needed), it
would have been nice if you responded with either "yes, this is not
order-only and the patch should be dropped", or "no, order-only is
correct because...".

In any case, I think the above remaining five were sensible changes,
and am thinking about having it graduating early in the cycle.

I somehow had an impression that the other series depended on this
for SCRIPT_PYTHON_* stuff, but this is about the installation step
and the other one is primarily about the build step, so in that
sense it may be independent.

>> * fc/remote-bzr (2013-05-28) 8 commits
>>  - remote-bzr: add fallback check for a partial clone
>>  - remote-bzr: reorganize the way 'wanted' works
>>  - remote-bzr: trivial cleanups
>>  - remote-bzr: change global repo
>>  - remote-bzr: delay cloning/pulling
>>  - remote-bzr: simplify get_remote_branch()
>>  - remote-bzr: fix for files with spaces
>>  - remote-bzr: recover from failed clones
>> 
>>  The ones near the tip conflicted with the hotfix for 1.8.3 so I
>>  discarded them for now.
>> 
>>  Will merge to 'next'?
>
> Didn't I resend these with the conflict fixed?

As the date above (05-28) shows, it seems that I did not forget to
drop the old one to replace with the new one, but I did forget to
remove the stale comment from the previous issue.  Thanks for
noticing.