From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24964 invoked by alias); 11 May 2011 17:15:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 24951 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2011 17:15:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 May 2011 17:15:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4BHEm9n007128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 May 2011 13:14:48 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4BHEhJG025162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 May 2011 13:14:47 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4BHEhNL004639; Wed, 11 May 2011 19:14:43 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p4BHEfn2004634; Wed, 11 May 2011 19:14:41 +0200 Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:15:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase Message-ID: <20110511171441.GA4224@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20110501122912.GA7206@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110511060421.GA9857@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110511163623.GB19356@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110511163623.GB19356@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2 On Wed, 11 May 2011 18:36:23 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I'm sensitive to the 'git bisect' argument, and I think that it's easy > to recreate the local diff. Also, I think we've always submitted the > vast majority of changes we make to readline, so of the changes should > no longer be needed at the next update. So a single-commit would be > my prefered option. OK, I will go with this single-commit way. > But I don't have a strong opinion. A multi-commit would be fine as well. > Or we could cut the cake in the middle, and make 2 commits: one resetting > readline with no change, and then one commit with all our local changes. TBH the two-commit way seems to me to have only disadvantages of both ways. Thanks, Jan