On 2020-06-19 at 21:09:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> 
> > Otherwise, this series is the same as v2 except for a rebase (for my
> > convenience and Junio's).
> 
> Not mine, though.  Keeping the same base is easier to see the
> incremental difference.

Okay, sorry about that.  It does make it more convenient for me
eventually (since I get to resolve conflicts more incrementally), but I
don't usually have to worry about that until the series hits master, so
I can hold off.  I'm not rebasing as many patches anymore, so it's less
of a problem for me.

> It wasn't too cumbersome to rebase back on the same base as what was
> queued (and the making sure the result, when merged to 'master',
> matches the result of applying all these patches directly on top of
> 'master'), though ;-)
> 
> In any case, the updated step 34 made sense to me.  Thanks.

Yeah, I discovered it the other day when updating another project to
deal with a SHA-256 Git, and I happen to be on vacation today, so I
thought I'd send out a quick fix.  I was surprised to learn that we had
no tests for cloning empty repositories, but here we are.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204