From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8658B207EC for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 01:20:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751678AbcJDBU4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 21:20:56 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57527 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751495AbcJDBU4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 21:20:56 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8967E43AF6; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 21:20:54 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=kYKuT5UcSgS6NMBFrq7+3nmsUHc=; b=QWIfUn T7kZzujnRUDX0WJXTqB6tWVYlCS5PR+AQbszsTbtmeMzRN8X2jaz3oVN20eT61PM vAT/wmc4tSfEgJp4IOg89DabOtu5I/9IxUTmW+tHMBLs2+anGRRvAbwbJdUPKAHH 0GjHF7mZrGNoYHmE8hKClAxwGUvD6obE0d6Xw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=QKVJOLMhp2ulRzcjovHlvO88Dx8Sfb2m a0d11PQftiTAm16ZteYVmoMblZZYdhqHvSFh3TP16FAgyVi7Fw9JIK5e7FILMAsU WD4NuARL1G5HmeWshDnx18hc7a7UwaysnboekbS7x6x6ZJCPiOxWiBlUc6pE67Yn Ty//rQmcKTg= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812AB43AF5; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 21:20:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED5F743AF4; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 21:20:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Pat Thoyts Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] git-gui: Update Japanese information References: <1472913822-9088-1-git-send-email-s.yasushima@gmail.com> <1473177741-9576-1-git-send-email-s.yasushima@gmail.com> <1473177741-9576-6-git-send-email-s.yasushima@gmail.com> <048AF5D4DC044BDC9F3A75A3BABD00F1@Yasushima> <87int9x1lp.fsf@red.patthoyts.tk> <87mvilt4jg.fsf@red.patthoyts.tk> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 18:20:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87mvilt4jg.fsf@red.patthoyts.tk> (Pat Thoyts's message of "Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:07:47 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CB631E5C-89D0-11E6-9FD9-EAAE7A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Pat Thoyts writes: > I've tried to merge in these branches as they appear in your version > although I already had one patch on top of 0.20.0 for some time. I've > tentatively pushed this up to http://github.com/patthoyts/git-gui as > branch 'pu' with additional stuff on top of the patches you already > have. If this looks ok to you I'll merge this to my master and send you > a merge request to get it all synchronized. Your 64c6b4c507 matches what I expected to see as the result of merging the above four topics on top of your 'master'. I have no opinion on the other topics that appear on top of it on the branch you pushed out, other than that I trust the maintainer of the subsystem and I'm fine to blindly pull them from you ;-) I am not sure if f64a1a9311 ("git-gui: maintain backwards compatibility for merge syntax", 2016-10-04) makes any practical difference in the real world, though. You'd need to find somebody who grabs the newer version of git-gui that includes b5f325cb4a ("git-gui: stop using deprecated merge syntax", 2016-09-24), without having updated their copy of git-core for more than a year, given that 2.5.0 is from July last year. It would not hurt, but I am not sure if an extra invocation of "git version" is really worth it. Thanks.