Hello, On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 06:21:13PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > According to what Thomas has suggested, I have pushed my code to the > > unionfs git repository (git://git.sv.gnu.org/hurd/unionfs.git) in a > > topic branch (master-unionmount). > > That's not a topic branch. Topic branches are essentially individual > patch series. This is a traditional branch, containing a cumulative > development history.
Aha, I see. Sorry for misusing the term. > While I do think that such main a "unionmount" branch is probably a good > idea, it should contain only the "approved" patches; while those still > in development would better be placed in true topic branches... OK. I'll stick to this in the future. Shall I move the yet not-completely-approved patches away from master-unionmount into corresponding topic branches? Regards, scolobb
