[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Please test the merge of the concurrency branch

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Please test the merge of the concurrency branch
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 09:09:20 +0200

> From: Karl Fogel <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  Tom Tromey <address@hidden>,  Ken Raeburn 
> <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 16:58:24 -0600
> >I'd appreciate if people who can afford it checked out this branch and
> >tested it on their systems, to make the probability of bad problems,
> >which I estimate as low, to be even lower, and thus to avoid the
> >danger of breaking master too hard.
> Built revision ad03e7af8 to get "GNU Emacs (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, 
> GTK+ Version 3.22.4) of 2016-12-09" (on a Debian GNU/Linux 'testing' distro, 
> dist-upgraded as of this morning).
> I used Emacs with no issues for a few hours, including running two shell 
> buffers (often with simultaneous active command output), reading/writing 
> email with Gnus, and doing various Org Mode things.

Thanks, this is good news.

> By the way, I also built an earlier revision (I don't remember the rev id 
> now) from the branch, and used it for about an hour, likewise with no 
> problems.  Then at some point I did 'git pull' and was surprised to get a 
> merge -- surprised, because I had no local modifications.  I assume this 
> means you or someone rebased the branch at some point?

Which branch? concurrency or test-concurrency?  These are different
branches; the latter is actually master with concurrency merged into
it (in de4624c), and with some followup commits to fix problems.

Regarding the original concurrency branch, Ken did a merge from master
around November last year.  Not sure if that explains what you saw.

If you checked out the test-concurrency branch, then there were no
rebases on it since it was pushed, a day before I announced it.  I
only added a few commits since then.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]