"Joachim Schmitz" [off-list ref] writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
I think we can start thinking about feature freeze once the topics
in 'next' that are scheduled to graduate to 'master' already are
fully cooked. For any late-coming topic, there always is the next
cycle ;-)
I've not hear anything about my poll patches and I'd really like them
to into 1.8.x.
I've seen some patches on "poll" posted, were discussed and had
threads titled "Re: [PATCH] ...". But I didn't see a rerolled
"[PATCH v2 n/m] ..." series that states that it is a rerolled
"hopefully final version" that addresses all the points that were
brought up during the discussion that need to be addressed.
I do not necessarily follow all the minute details of all discussion
threads. For this particular series, I not know which ones of your
"poll patches" turned out to be unneeded, which ones turned out to
be fine as posted originally and which ones needed updating.
From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:gitster@pobox.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 7:01 PM
To: Joachim Schmitz
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2012, #05; Fri, 14)
"Joachim Schmitz" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
I think we can start thinking about feature freeze once the topics
in 'next' that are scheduled to graduate to 'master' already are
fully cooked. For any late-coming topic, there always is the next
cycle ;-)
I've not hear anything about my poll patches and I'd really like them
to into 1.8.x.
I've seen some patches on "poll" posted, were discussed and had
threads titled "Re: [PATCH] ...". But I didn't see a rerolled
"[PATCH v2 n/m] ..." series that states that it is a rerolled
"hopefully final version" that addresses all the points that were
brought up during the discussion that need to be addressed.
I do not necessarily follow all the minute details of all discussion
threads. For this particular series, I not know which ones of your
"poll patches" turned out to be unneeded, which ones turned out to
be fine as posted originally and which ones needed updating.
There were several iterations up to [PATCH v4 n/4] and only one foreign comment to it (and to some commented code) and one
self-comment about the order of patches, but none about technical correctness, none that I remember at least.
I can post a v5 series which will
- move compat/win32/poll.[ch] to compat/poll/ and adjust Makefile
- #ifdef some WIN32 specific #include (should this be done in one step with the above?)
- fix the 2 bugs in poll.c just like they got fixed in gnulib's version (would you want this in one or two steps?)
Bye, Jojo
From: Joachim Schmitz [mailto:jojo@schmitz-digital.de]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 7:15 PM
To: 'Junio C Hamano'
Cc: 'git@vger.kernel.org'
Subject: RE: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2012, #05; Fri, 14)
quoted
From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:gitster@pobox.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 7:01 PM
To: Joachim Schmitz
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2012, #05; Fri, 14)
"Joachim Schmitz" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
I think we can start thinking about feature freeze once the topics
in 'next' that are scheduled to graduate to 'master' already are
fully cooked. For any late-coming topic, there always is the next
cycle ;-)
I've not hear anything about my poll patches and I'd really like them
to into 1.8.x.
I've seen some patches on "poll" posted, were discussed and had
threads titled "Re: [PATCH] ...". But I didn't see a rerolled
"[PATCH v2 n/m] ..." series that states that it is a rerolled
"hopefully final version" that addresses all the points that were
brought up during the discussion that need to be addressed.
I do not necessarily follow all the minute details of all discussion
threads. For this particular series, I not know which ones of your
"poll patches" turned out to be unneeded, which ones turned out to
be fine as posted originally and which ones needed updating.
There were several iterations up to [PATCH v4 n/4] and only one foreign comment to it (and to some commented code) and one self-
comment about the order of patches, but none about technical correctness, none that I remember at least.
I can post a v5 series which will
Actually v6, seems I got myself confused in what I send already, one part of the series was on v5 already, aother on v4 and yet
another still on v3.
- move compat/win32/poll.[ch] to compat/poll/ and adjust Makefile
- #ifdef some WIN32 specific #include (should this be done in one step with the above?)
Decided for 2 patches
- fix the 2 bugs in poll.c just like they got fixed in gnulib's version (would you want this in one or two steps?)
Likewise
Bye, Jojo