From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1F61F454 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 03:04:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727574AbfKBDE5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Nov 2019 23:04:57 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:62090 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727067AbfKBDE4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Nov 2019 23:04:56 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16D32D9E4; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 23:04:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=kSROIQOGI+dNGbXwi+dDkg5S3Bg=; b=FW5v8S lv4yC5P3Tt9O8SveaeVrjvaoo2qPwOKokt2FEik7gOYDke2lBn3oxjaaJzeV3v23 CHmSO/a+B2y7DATvca09KNOj5GHBetnzApW2wTQ9MiEt0couYThOxqRfXoLyu+M+ Rkuff2+pGD5zQAQdZ0MCbFYzJDfbwZzG9s85g= 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=RqC16p9AjPE/QOVtar/l4ZgGjjbsnRZw o5dk35MaNwABvlIm5efjlSh02Q51fAlfyWWSACl/qleSE8TUH2lbXtj4vUTsDYhd cH8LAVtbD9W7jGnSTtjVk4qGlbMdrEbXlyKWIveYpTptJkjJDOSDqIZ0RyDm5EdZ eNatvxt0Sjs= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4EC2D9E2; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 23:04:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DF272D9E0; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 23:04:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] update-index: optionally leave skip-worktree entries alone References: <86dbb11f159375da281acd6266df019106abeadb.1572261615.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:04:52 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 30 Oct 2019 09:34:38 +0100 (CET)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8B1DBA50-FD1D-11E9-86CB-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > > I changed this locally to `keep-me`. But then I saw that you merged this > patch pair to `next` already... Do you want an add-on patch, or revert > it out of `next`, or leave as-is? > > I'd like to know because I still want to merge this into Git for Windows > v2.24.0-rc2, and I would love to deviate as little as possible from > git.git there. >... > So: revert out of `next`, add-on patch, or leave as-is? Sorry for a late response. I was under the weather and mostly offline for the past few days. Whichever is easier for GGG is fine, but for the purpose of resulting history, I think revert-replace would be the best. Thanks.