Heads up: skipping a couple commits when merging emacs-29 to master

Heads up: skipping a couple commits when merging emacs-29 to master

[Jim Porter]

In bug#62556, I merged some separate patches for emacs-29 and master. On 
the emacs-29 branch, there were a few test failures that were fixed in 
followups by both Eli and me, but I don't think the commits were marked 
as "Do not merge to master".

Since emacs-29 and master handle these tests in different ways, merging 
those followups will probably fail, so (I think) they should be skipped. 
The commits SHAs to skip are:

   21a4ee209c19031e29e98e4308aa9d67890a0515
   46209b2453b1a53fcf0019f6e1a21b7fef85bcbc
   89e337c3fc9a51454afb86176a507f46c198be9f

Thanks, and sorry for any difficulties with merging.

Re: Heads up: skipping a couple commits when merging emacs-29 to master

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2023 15:13:12 -0700
> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com>
> 
> In bug#62556, I merged some separate patches for emacs-29 and master. On 
> the emacs-29 branch, there were a few test failures that were fixed in 
> followups by both Eli and me, but I don't think the commits were marked 
> as "Do not merge to master".
> 
> Since emacs-29 and master handle these tests in different ways, merging 
> those followups will probably fail, so (I think) they should be skipped. 
> The commits SHAs to skip are:
> 
>    21a4ee209c19031e29e98e4308aa9d67890a0515
>    46209b2453b1a53fcf0019f6e1a21b7fef85bcbc
>    89e337c3fc9a51454afb86176a507f46c198be9f
> 
> Thanks, and sorry for any difficulties with merging.

Could you please verify that those commits were indeed not merged, or
that they merged correctly?

Re: Heads up: skipping a couple commits when merging emacs-29 to master

[Jim Porter]

On 4/6/2023 3:29 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2023 15:13:12 -0700
>> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com>
>>
>> Since emacs-29 and master handle these tests in different ways, merging
>> those followups will probably fail, so (I think) they should be skipped.
>> The commits SHAs to skip are:
>>
>>     21a4ee209c19031e29e98e4308aa9d67890a0515
>>     46209b2453b1a53fcf0019f6e1a21b7fef85bcbc
>>     89e337c3fc9a51454afb86176a507f46c198be9f
>>
>> Thanks, and sorry for any difficulties with merging.
> 
> Could you please verify that those commits were indeed not merged, or
> that they merged correctly?

As far as I can tell, those commits haven't been merged and master looks 
ok right now.

However, I'm not sure if that's just because no one's tried to merge 
them yet. I thought when a commit was skipped, the merge commit would 
say, "The following commits were skipped," listing the skipped commits. 
However, I don't see that in c108132d3bb69d0cc8d2e0222a781dff9abca087, 
which is the only merge commit from emacs-29 -> master that I see in the 
right time range.

Re: Heads up: skipping a couple commits when merging emacs-29 to master

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 11:05:01 -0700
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com>
> 
> On 4/6/2023 3:29 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>     21a4ee209c19031e29e98e4308aa9d67890a0515
> >>     46209b2453b1a53fcf0019f6e1a21b7fef85bcbc
> >>     89e337c3fc9a51454afb86176a507f46c198be9f
> >>
> >> Thanks, and sorry for any difficulties with merging.
> > 
> > Could you please verify that those commits were indeed not merged, or
> > that they merged correctly?
> 
> As far as I can tell, those commits haven't been merged and master looks 
> ok right now.
> 
> However, I'm not sure if that's just because no one's tried to merge 
> them yet. I thought when a commit was skipped, the merge commit would 
> say, "The following commits were skipped," listing the skipped commits. 
> However, I don't see that in c108132d3bb69d0cc8d2e0222a781dff9abca087, 
> which is the only merge commit from emacs-29 -> master that I see in the 
> right time range.

Yes, you are right.  I've done the merge now.

Re: Heads up: skipping a couple commits when merging emacs-29 to master

[Jim Porter]

On 4/6/2023 11:46 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Yes, you are right.  I've done the merge now.

I pulled the latest changes and everything looks correct to me. Thanks.