Re: unionmount branches

Hello, On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:21:01AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 07:20:08PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > antrik suggested that I put only the patch series to which he has > > given a final acknowledge into the public repository. > > Not exactly: I su

Re: unionmount branches

Hi, On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 07:20:08PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > antrik suggested that I put only the patch series to which he has > given a final acknowledge into the public repository. Not exactly: I suggested that you only put the acknowledged patches on the *main* unionmount branch. Ther

Re: unionmount branches

Hello, On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 12:37:31AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:20:45PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > Just to make sure: I can push the mount patch series (starting with > > ``Add the --mount command line option'' to ``Add the mountee to the > > list of mer

Re: unionmount branches

Hello! On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:20:45PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:42PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > > > wrote: >

Re: unionmount branches

Hello, On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:42PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > > wrote: > > > > While I do think that such main a "unionmount" branch is probab

Re: unionmount branches

Hi, On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 01:28:53AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Let me explain: the idea indeed was to construct a history line, but > in an easily, directly-visible way, which I explain on > . Of > course you're correct tha

Re: unionmount branches

Hello, On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 01:28:53AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 04:27:12PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > > > I think so. However, it's probably better not to change the existing > > > m

Re: unionmount branches

Hello! On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 04:27:12PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:42PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > > > wrote: >

Re: unionmount branches

Hello, On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:42PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > > wrote: > > > > While I do think that such main a "unionmount" branch is probab

Re: unionmount branches

Hi, On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:42PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote: > > While I do think that such main a "unionmount" branch is probably a > > good idea, it should contain only the "approved" patches; while > > those sti

Re: unionmount branches

Hello, On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net 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 > > t

unionmount branches (was: News 2009-08-31)

Hi, 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 essent