Usman Akinyemi <usmanakinyemi202@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I expect this and other fixes to get squashed into the upstream branch, but I'm >> including it here so it's easy to create a clean build. >> > >> difftool--helper | filter-branch | fsck-objects | get-tar-commit-id | \ >> http-backend | http-fetch | http-push | init-db | instaweb.sh | \ >> merge-octopus | merge-one-file | merge-resolve | mergetool | \ >> - mktag | p4 | p4.py | pickaxe | quiltimport | remote-ftp | remote-ftps | \ >> - remote-http | remote-https | replay | request-pull | send-email | \ >> + mktag | p4 | p4.py | pickaxe | remote-ftp | remote-ftps | \ >> + remote-http | remote-https | replay | send-email | \ > Thanks >> sh-i18n--envsubst | shell | show | stage | submodule | svn | \ >> upload-archive--writer | upload-pack | web--browse | whatchanged) >> expect_outcome=expect_failure ;; >> @@ -125,7 +125,6 @@ > >> >> test_expect_success 'update-server-info does not crash with -h' ' >> test_expect_code 129 git update-server-info -h >usage && >> - test_grep "[Uu]sage: git update-server-info " usage && >> + test_grep "[Uu]sage: git update-server-info " usage >> ' > Looks good to me. > Thanks. So, can I ignore this step from the series and expect the fixes to be already in your updated series we will see in the future? Thanks.
