Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #03; Fri, 11)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

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

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> * fc/complete-aliased-push (2014-04-09) 1 commit
>>  - completion: fix completing args of aliased "push", "fetch", etc.
>> 
>>  Will merge to 'next'.
>> 
>> 
>> * fc/remote-helper-fixes (2014-04-09) 4 commits
>>  - remote-bzr: include authors field in pushed commits
>
> Before you do, you might want to pick the unrelated fix I just sent[1],
> otherwise this test might fail on some machines.

Will pick up $gmane/246157 (or at least will try to remember ;-).
Thanks.

>>  - remote-bzr: add support for older versions
>>  - remote-hg: always normalize paths
>>  - remote-helpers: allow all tests running from any dir
>> 
>>  Will merge to 'next'.
>
>> * fc/publish-vs-upstream (2014-04-11) 8 commits
>>  - sha1_name: add support for @{publish} marks
>>  - sha1_name: simplify track finding
>>  - sha1_name: cleanup interpret_branch_name()
>>  - branch: display publish branch
>>  - push: add --set-publish option
>>  - branch: add --set-publish-to option
>>  - Add concept of 'publish' branch
>>  - t5516 (fetch-push): fix test restoration
>> 
>>  Add branch@{publish}; this round v3 hasn't yet seen much reviews
>>  yet.
>> 
>>  Seems to have some interactions to break tests when merged to 'pu'.
>
> That was v2, wasn't it?

The tip d95807a0e1b7 (sha1_name: add support for @{publish} marks,
2014-04-11) is with timestamp "Fri Apr 11 12:59:11 2014 -0500",
which matches $gmane/246122, so I am reasonably sure that I applied
the v3 on the same base as the base I queued the v2 on, compared
them and then updated the branch.  Also I can tell by seeing some
patches lost the retitle I did for the previous round.