> Bonjour Vincent. Thanks for the updates, I merged them in my branch (only
> fixed a typo in NEWS and added a comma there).
There are conflicts there but they can be solved at merge time.
> Regarding "other tests will (or
> should !) fail if we do" yes two tests would fail as I verified.
Great, thanks for checking !
> I'll get started on the contributor agreement.
Thanks.
> Regarding doing the same for "push", do you mean printing the revid of the
> target branch before the push occurs? Is that info easily available to the
> push-er?
It should since that's how we know what to push, if it's not available already, a call to last_revision_info on the remote branch should tell you.
> Bonjour Vincent. Thanks for the updates, I merged them in my branch (only
> fixed a typo in NEWS and added a comma there).
There are conflicts there but they can be solved at merge time.
> Regarding "other tests will (or
> should !) fail if we do" yes two tests would fail as I verified.
Great, thanks for checking !
> I'll get started on the contributor agreement.
Thanks.
> Regarding doing the same for "push", do you mean printing the revid of the
> target branch before the push occurs? Is that info easily available to the
> push-er?
It should since that's how we know what to push, if it's not available already, a call to last_revision_info on the remote branch should tell you.
But let's land this patch first.