On 16/09/2007, Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On 2007-09-15 00:31:09 +0200, David Kågedal wrote:
>
> > The following series removes the 'bottom' and 'top' files for each
> > patch, and instead uses the commit objects to keep track of the
> > patches.
>
> Wonderful! Does this ensure that there's a bijection between patches
> and commits at _all_ times, or am I missing something?

We should get rid of top.old and bottom.old as well.

My question - does this conflict with the DAG patches in any way? I
intend to include the them at some point, once I get a chance to test
the performance penalty with a big tree like the Linux kernel.

quoted text
> Hmm, wait, no. Right. We also have to create commits for those patches
> that don't have exactly one commit object. Not that there'll be many
> of them, but better not make assumptions ...

Is there any patch which consists of more than one commit? Maybe only
uncommit could generate one but I think we put some tests in place.

-- 
Catalin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html