From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: I just pushed master into emacs-27 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:47:02 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87wo2m80nh.fsf@petton.fr> <87d04e54cm.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1st9ayc.fsf@petton.fr> <838sf1g25g.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11264"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, bandali@gnu.org, Nicolas Petton To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 30 04:47:40 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k0ybc-0002p2-97 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 04:47:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44206 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0ybb-0006j3-AE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:47:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0yb7-0006KI-7m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:47:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:54871) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0yb5-0006Dh-FM; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:47:08 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 06DFA81249; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2467F806F7; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:47:04 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1596077224; bh=Ux0ZzIvp+N9AQCrqppH1terSLZWmg67v9lmVa6t2VTs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=AdIDi3uvJmuyDprxL8yXI2ye7zFNcAU6mFKnODWt9pdm5H5GHtRSc1EEj2xHNBRih Z/A/sSWxEQpE8RP+QfZDXNxDbBkFGIKADRrIiu9IBWx5wWhqjTIHVxNrp94GFe5RIO NGo2AxYHnbOo4m8phWIwl3vN659yQO0TNhtF2UMYaa6uuzfrceot67y9Vt6wX6VLZp uik1g9Pl4Xnt//gim3AQVrSW7D9nWILiclYIs8Sh2f3vyyFUphEFtqo663JIT+fvJc EIjmBNmbq7OxIpcxgduPXnlqqPDdkcqFak9eKfRIMXDdvDEDq5LWwl40F5w17mpwUB jd8qH0Xbx65RQ== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [45.72.246.108]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97304120608; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:47:03 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <838sf1g25g.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 30 Jul 2020 05:36:11 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/29 22:44:51 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:253343 Archived-At: >> > I think the most important question at this point is: can this change be >> > effectively and reasonably reversed, or is the emacs.git repository and >> > its emacs-27 branch on Savannah irreversibly messed up / cluttered? >> The branch should be protected against non fast-forward pushes. > It is. Indeed it is protected, but this push *was* a fast-forward. Stefan