On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:04:04 -0700 "W. Trevor King" wrote: > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 04:27:27PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > I would prefer to get to them in close order to what they are in 3.0 > > now. It should mean less rebasing to make them and the other > > commits fit master which will have additional changes along the > > process or review/merge. > > No problem (I'm clearly not in a big hurry ;). I just noticed that > term-env-var had landed in master (with c753911), and that I'd posted > the pandoc-mediawiki branch since my last bump, and didn't want to > forget those changes. > > If it would help shrink 3.0 faster, I can check my outstanding > branches for orthogonality and just submit a list that apply cleanly > both underneath and on top of 3.0. I'm unclear on which parts of 3.0 > have already landed, but I think most of my branches are poking things > that are independent of your 3.0 restructuring. > > Cheers, > Trevor > I've attached the 3.0 log I made that shows all the commits since the start. I've tried to mark off all commits that are in master or now pending. What I did is set highlighting to python and type Done and surround the commit with triple quotes. That way they are a little easier to tell apart. I know there are some mistakes in it. Some of the later commits were incorporated into earlier ones. I should have done this list from the start. But anyway, for those commits, they should not apply/or be blank commits which git will report. Anyway, I am working from the bottom of the file to the top. I'll start testing, splitting/squashing the commits in pending now. I may pull some later commits that fix issues in these early ones while I'm testing, if I remember I had later commits fixing things in these. -- Brian Dolbec