(8,'2010-07-08 21:04:41','Patch Set 2:\n\nTrackOperation and PushOperation fail here, even without Shawns big API changes.\n\norg.eclipse.egit.core--All-Tests\norg.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.PushOperationTest\ntestPush(org.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.PushOperationTest)\njava.lang.AssertionError: expected:<OK> but was:<UP_TO_DATE>\n	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:91)\n	at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:618)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:126)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:145)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.PushOperationTest.testPush(PushOperationTest.java:159)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:73)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:46)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:180)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:41)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:173)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:220)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:46)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.pde.internal.junit.runtime.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:62)\n	at org.eclipse.pde.internal.junit.runtime.UITestApplication$1.run(UITestApplication.java:114)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.RunnableLock.run(RunnableLock.java:35)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Synchronizer.runAsyncMessages(Synchronizer.java:134)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.runAsyncMessages(Display.java:3468)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3115)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runEventLoop(Workbench.java:2405)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runUI(Workbench.java:2369)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.access$4(Workbench.java:2221)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench$5.run(Workbench.java:500)\n	at org.eclipse.core.databinding.observable.Realm.runWithDefault(Realm.java:332)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.createAndRunWorkbench(Workbench.java:493)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.PlatformUI.createAndRunWorkbench(PlatformUI.java:149)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ide.application.IDEApplication.start(IDEApplication.java:113)\n	at org.eclipse.pde.internal.junit.runtime.UITestApplication.start(UITestApplication.java:46)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.app.EclipseAppHandle.run(EclipseAppHandle.java:194)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.runApplication(EclipseAppLauncher.java:110)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.start(EclipseAppLauncher.java:79)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:368)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:179)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.invokeFramework(Main.java:559)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.basicRun(Main.java:514)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.run(Main.java:1311)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.main(Main.java:1287)\n\norg.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.TrackUntrackOperationTest\ntestTrackFiles(org.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.TrackUntrackOperationTest)\njava.lang.AssertionError: Wrong cache entry count expected:<0> but was:<2>\n	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:91)\n	at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:618)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:126)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:443)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.TrackUntrackOperationTest.testTrackFiles(TrackUntrackOperationTest.java:95)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:73)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:46)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:180)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:41)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:173)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:220)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:46)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.pde.internal.junit.runtime.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:62)\n	at org.eclipse.pde.internal.junit.runtime.UITestApplication$1.run(UITestApplication.java:114)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.RunnableLock.run(RunnableLock.java:35)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Synchronizer.runAsyncMessages(Synchronizer.java:134)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.runAsyncMessages(Display.java:3468)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3115)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runEventLoop(Workbench.java:2405)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runUI(Workbench.java:2369)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.access$4(Workbench.java:2221)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench$5.run(Workbench.java:500)\n	at org.eclipse.core.databinding.observable.Realm.runWithDefault(Realm.java:332)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.createAndRunWorkbench(Workbench.java:493)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.PlatformUI.createAndRunWorkbench(PlatformUI.java:149)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ide.application.IDEApplication.start(IDEApplication.java:113)\n	at org.eclipse.pde.internal.junit.runtime.UITestApplication.start(UITestApplication.java:46)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.app.EclipseAppHandle.run(EclipseAppHandle.java:194)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.runApplication(EclipseAppLauncher.java:110)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.start(EclipseAppLauncher.java:79)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:368)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:179)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.invokeFramework(Main.java:559)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.basicRun(Main.java:514)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.run(Main.java:1311)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.main(Main.java:1287)',1074,'AAALwX//+78='),(8,'2010-07-14 20:49:58','Patch Set 2:\n\nCorrected stack trace  (I had some printouts to test a hypothesis in the previous comment)\n\njava.lang.AssertionError: expected:<OK> but was:<UP_TO_DATE>\n	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:91)\n	at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:645)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:126)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:145)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.PushOperationTest.testPush(PushOperationTest.java:159)',1074,'AAALwX//+wo='),(8,'2010-07-14 20:47:24','Patch Set 2:\n\nPushOperation still fails most of the time.\n\njava.lang.AssertionError: expected:<OK> but was:<UP_TO_DATE>\n	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:91)\n	at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:645)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:126)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:145)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.PushOperationTest.testPush(PushOperationTest.java:167)\n	at',1074,'AAALwX//+ws='),(2,'2010-07-17 14:03:20','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good',1075,'AAALw3////c='),(46,'2010-07-19 07:02:01','Uploaded patch set 8.',1075,'AAALw3////U='),(NULL,'2010-07-17 14:03:23','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1075,'AAALw3////Y='),(46,'2010-07-20 08:20:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1075,'AAALw3///88='),(46,'2010-07-20 08:20:40','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased again and retested (manually and using the SWTBot tests)',1075,'AAALw3///9A='),(46,'2010-07-20 08:10:07','Uploaded patch set 9.',1075,'AAALw3///9I='),(46,'2010-07-16 17:26:51','Uploaded patch set 7.',1075,'AAALwn///6g='),(46,'2010-07-08 08:15:56','Patch Set 5:\n\nRebased and added bug 319152',1075,'AAALwX///Ac='),(46,'2010-07-08 08:15:22','Uploaded patch set 5.',1075,'AAALwX///Ag='),(46,'2010-07-08 08:17:21','Patch Set 6:\n\nRebased',1075,'AAALwX///AU='),(46,'2010-07-08 08:17:01','Uploaded patch set 6.',1075,'AAALwX///AY='),(46,'2010-07-07 14:09:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',1075,'AAALwX///E4='),(46,'2010-07-07 15:17:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',1075,'AAALwX///Ec='),(74,'2010-07-07 14:37:58','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1075,'AAALwX///Ek='),(46,'2010-07-07 15:23:09','Uploaded patch set 4.',1075,'AAALwX///EY='),(8,'2010-07-07 21:20:41','Patch Set 1:\n\nSpelling error in comment. Other than that, ok.',1076,'AAALwX///CU='),(46,'2010-07-07 15:25:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',1076,'AAALwX///EU='),(6,'2010-07-09 11:31:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1076,'AAALwX//+5o='),(6,'2010-07-09 11:31:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1076,'AAALwX//+5s='),(2,'2010-07-07 17:28:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1077,'AAALwX///Co='),(2,'2010-07-07 17:28:06','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Shawn!',1077,'AAALwX///Cs='),(1,'2010-07-07 16:15:08','Uploaded patch set 3.',1077,'AAALwX///DE='),(2,'2010-07-07 15:41:24','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\n(15 inline comments)\n\nAdded some comments about pointing to other classes when deprecating something... also we should send an email to jgit-dev when we deprecate these and inform people that they will be removed by 1.0...',1077,'AAALwX///DQ='),(1,'2010-07-07 15:33:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',1077,'AAALwX///EQ='),(5,'2010-07-08 04:53:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1078,'AAALwX///A4='),(NULL,'2010-07-08 14:23:45','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* Icf177cf8043487169a32ddd72b6f8f9246a433f7\n',1078,'AAALwX//++s='),(4,'2010-07-09 12:13:25','Patch Set 2:\n\nrebased to pull it out of the unrelated patch series',1078,'AAALwX//+5c='),(4,'2010-07-09 12:12:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1078,'AAALwX//+5g='),(5,'2010-07-09 12:24:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1078,'AAALwX//+5Q='),(5,'2010-07-09 12:24:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1078,'AAALwX//+5U='),(46,'2010-07-08 06:23:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThanks a lot.',1079,'AAALwX///A0='),(46,'2010-07-08 08:07:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1079,'AAALwX///As='),(46,'2010-07-08 08:07:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1079,'AAALwX///Aw='),(6,'2010-07-08 08:08:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1080,'AAALwX///Ak='),(6,'2010-07-08 08:08:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1080,'AAALwX///Ao='),(46,'2010-07-08 11:29:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1081,'AAALwX//+/4='),(2,'2010-07-08 14:23:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1081,'AAALwX//++o='),(2,'2010-07-08 14:23:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple fix.',1081,'AAALwX//++w='),(46,'2010-07-08 12:36:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1082,'AAALwX//+/Q='),(46,'2010-07-08 12:36:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Benjamin.',1082,'AAALwX//+/U='),(46,'2010-07-19 09:12:46','Patch Set 2:\n\nOf course it would be great to implment submodule support. As far as I know, however, there is currently no activity in this area. I would suggest the following:\n1. we promote bug 314853 to a feature request\n2. we point the other bugs to that one as duplicate\n3. we use the code changes proposed here to inform the end users about the missing feature so that they won\'t have to create new bugs',1083,'AAALw3////A='),(46,'2010-07-08 11:24:02','Uploaded patch set 2.',1083,'AAALwX//+/8='),(1,'2010-07-08 19:16:01','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nInstead of refusing to check out a project that has a .gitmodules file, I would prefer to fix the code that is trying to process a GITLINK entry as though it were a blob.\n\nFWIW, even C Git ran into a ton of bugs when GITLINK was added to the core code.  It took them a while to shake out all of the code paths that cared.',1083,'AAALwX//+8A='),(46,'2010-07-28 11:59:31','Uploaded patch set 3.',1083,'AAALxH///0M='),(1,'2010-07-28 18:59:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1083,'AAALxH///x0='),(1,'2010-07-28 18:59:37','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nOK, fine, I give up.  We\'ll include this error message for now.',1083,'AAALxH///x4='),(1,'2010-07-28 18:59:19','Uploaded patch set 4.',1083,'AAALxH///x8='),(46,'2010-07-09 08:44:21','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed the copyright issue.',1084,'AAALwX//+54='),(46,'2010-07-09 08:42:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',1084,'AAALwX//+58='),(8,'2010-07-08 22:01:48','Patch Set 1:\n\nAn alternate approach would be to try to get these API\'s to be public and possible continue to use the internal API\'s until 0.9.',1084,'AAALwX//+7c='),(8,'2010-07-08 22:01:48','Patch Set 1:\n\nAn alternate approach would be to try to get these API\'s to be public and possible continue to use the internal API\'s until 0.9.',1084,'AAALwX//+7g='),(8,'2010-07-08 21:57:16','Patch Set 1:\n\nBad copyright is un-clean IP, I think (see Remy\'s comments)',1084,'AAALwX//+7k='),(8,'2010-07-08 21:57:15','Patch Set 1: Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nBad copyright is un-clean IP, I think (see Remy\'s comments)',1084,'AAALwX//+7o='),(63,'2010-07-08 17:31:02','Patch Set 1:\n\nIf you\'re going to copy paste, please use the original copyright instead of tagging it as SAP.',1084,'AAALwX//+9E='),(2,'2010-07-08 16:57:50','Patch Set 1:\n\nThe chance of Team doing anything for 3.7 is low... for now... and if they did anything... it was force us to depend on 3.7 as a minimum requirement (which we don\'t want to do at the moment). So for 0.9, I think this is the right approach for now.',1084,'AAALwX//+9I='),(11,'2010-07-08 16:52:37','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCopy-n-pasting? I don\'t like this idea. Should we wait for response from platform team [1]?\n\n[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=319287',1084,'AAALwX//+9M='),(46,'2010-07-28 11:27:12','Uploaded patch set 3.',1084,'AAALxH///0U='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:33:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1084,'AAALxX///+I='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:33:14','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. In the Eclipse 3.7 and 4.0 streams, we should strive to work with the Team committers to make sure we don\'t have to do things like this in the future.',1084,'AAALxX///+M='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:31:00','Uploaded patch set 4.',1084,'AAALxX///+Q='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1085,'AAALwn///7I='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:25:12','Patch Set 5: IP review completed\n\n',1085,'AAALwn///8U='),(2,'2010-07-09 18:08:05','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1085,'AAALwX//+4k='),(4,'2010-07-09 11:51:40','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1085,'AAALwX//+5k='),(1,'2010-07-08 23:33:49','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1085,'AAALwX//+6c='),(1,'2010-07-09 00:26:12','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1085,'AAALwX//+6I='),(73,'2010-07-08 23:59:17','Uploaded patch set 5.',1085,'AAALwX//+6M='),(73,'2010-07-08 23:29:58','Uploaded patch set 4.',1085,'AAALwX//+6s='),(1,'2010-07-08 23:16:13','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\n',1085,'AAALwX//+6w='),(73,'2010-07-08 22:56:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',1085,'AAALwX//+7U='),(73,'2010-07-08 18:47:28','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\nWorking on the unit test now',1085,'AAALwX//+8E='),(73,'2010-07-08 18:16:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',1085,'AAALwX//+8w='),(1,'2010-07-08 18:25:54','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',1085,'AAALwX//+8Y='),(6,'2010-07-09 11:29:39','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1086,'AAALwX//+50='),(6,'2010-07-09 11:29:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1086,'AAALwX//+5w='),(46,'2010-07-09 08:37:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',1086,'AAALwX//+6A='),(4,'2010-07-16 08:43:53','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master and fixed typo in commit message',1087,'AAALwn///+c='),(4,'2010-07-16 08:42:42','Uploaded patch set 5.',1087,'AAALwn///+g='),(4,'2010-07-16 08:43:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1087,'AAALwn///+Y='),(74,'2010-07-12 16:23:51','Uploaded patch set 3.',1087,'AAALwX//+24='),(46,'2010-07-12 06:44:32','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nThanks, that\'s much better than my quick-and-dirty patch... There are some whitespace problems with the test class, though.',1087,'AAALwX//+3w='),(74,'2010-07-09 21:12:22','Uploaded patch set 2.',1087,'AAALwX//+4g='),(74,'2010-07-14 12:01:50','Uploaded patch set 4.',1087,'AAALwX//+xU='),(4,'2010-07-12 23:16:16','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n- verified tests and tried it, good :-)\n- some minor issues (style nits, comment)',1087,'AAALwX//+zM='),(46,'2010-07-12 09:39:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1088,'AAALwX//+3k='),(6,'2010-07-12 11:54:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1088,'AAALwX//+3Q='),(6,'2010-07-12 11:54:08','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1088,'AAALwX//+3U='),(6,'2010-07-12 12:01:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1089,'AAALwX//+3I='),(6,'2010-07-12 12:01:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1089,'AAALwX//+3M='),(4,'2010-07-16 20:33:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1090,'AAALwn///6I='),(4,'2010-07-16 20:33:07','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1090,'AAALwn///6M='),(46,'2010-07-16 17:25:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1090,'AAALwn///78='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1091,'AAALwn///7M='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:25:07','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\n',1091,'AAALwn///8Y='),(1,'2010-07-12 19:39:03','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1091,'AAALwX//+1k='),(73,'2010-07-12 19:33:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1091,'AAALwX//+1s='),(1,'2010-07-12 17:21:48','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1091,'AAALwX//+2w='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1092,'AAALwn///7Q='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:25:02','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\n',1092,'AAALwn///8c='),(73,'2010-07-12 19:33:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1092,'AAALwX//+10='),(1,'2010-07-12 19:39:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1092,'AAALwX//+1g='),(1,'2010-07-12 17:22:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nLGTM, but has to be rebased, so I\'ll +2 again later...',1092,'AAALwX//+2s='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1093,'AAALwn///7U='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:24:54','Patch Set 3: IP review completed\n\n',1093,'AAALwn///8g='),(4,'2010-07-12 21:34:29','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1093,'AAALwX//+0M='),(1,'2010-07-12 21:33:18','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1093,'AAALwX//+0Y='),(73,'2010-07-12 19:56:00','Uploaded patch set 3.',1093,'AAALwX//+1I='),(1,'2010-07-12 19:41:11','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1093,'AAALwX//+1U='),(73,'2010-07-12 19:33:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1093,'AAALwX//+1w='),(73,'2010-07-12 19:40:50','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI forgot to update the test cases in SimilarityIndexTest to take into account the new parameter on the score method. I\'ll upload another patch set shortly.',1093,'AAALwX//+1Y='),(73,'2010-07-12 18:15:51','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1093,'AAALwX//+2I='),(1,'2010-07-12 17:46:13','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\n',1093,'AAALwX//+2Q='),(4,'2010-07-12 09:44:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1094,'AAALwX//+3c='),(4,'2010-07-12 09:44:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nverified',1094,'AAALwX//+3g='),(1,'2010-07-10 01:56:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1095,'AAALwX//+4M='),(1,'2010-07-14 00:36:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1095,'AAALwX//+xk='),(8,'2010-07-10 08:24:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',1096,'AAALwX//+38='),(1,'2010-07-10 01:57:18','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1096,'AAALwX//+4A='),(1,'2010-07-14 00:36:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1096,'AAALwX//+xo='),(1,'2010-07-14 00:36:21','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1096,'AAALwX//+xs='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:40','Change has been successfully pushed.',1097,'AAALxH///9w='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:40','Change has been successfully pushed.',1098,'AAALxH///90='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:40','Change has been successfully pushed.',1099,'AAALxH///94='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:40','Change has been successfully pushed.',1100,'AAALxH///98='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:40','Change has been successfully pushed.',1101,'AAALxH///+A='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:40','Change has been successfully pushed.',1102,'AAALxH///+E='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:40','Change has been successfully pushed.',1103,'AAALxH///+I='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:40','Change has been successfully pushed.',1104,'AAALxH///+M='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:39','Change has been successfully pushed.',1105,'AAALxH///+Q='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:39','Change has been successfully pushed.',1106,'AAALxH///+U='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:39','Change has been successfully pushed.',1107,'AAALxH///+Y='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:39','Change has been successfully pushed.',1108,'AAALxH///+c='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:39','Change has been successfully pushed.',1109,'AAALxH///+g='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:39','Change has been successfully pushed.',1110,'AAALxH///+k='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:38','Change has been successfully pushed.',1111,'AAALxH///+o='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:38','Change has been successfully pushed.',1112,'AAALxH///+s='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:38','Change has been successfully pushed.',1113,'AAALxH///+w='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:38','Change has been successfully pushed.',1114,'AAALxH///+0='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:38','Change has been successfully pushed.',1115,'AAALxH///+4='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:38','Change has been successfully pushed.',1116,'AAALxH///+8='),(46,'2010-07-12 11:52:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',1117,'AAALwX//+3Y='),(46,'2010-07-13 09:47:06','Uploaded patch set 5.',1117,'AAALwX//+y4='),(46,'2010-07-13 09:44:19','Uploaded patch set 4.',1117,'AAALwX//+y8='),(4,'2010-07-13 14:55:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1117,'AAALwX//+yc='),(4,'2010-07-13 14:55:42','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nthanks Mathias',1117,'AAALwX//+yg='),(46,'2010-07-13 09:42:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',1117,'AAALwX//+zA='),(4,'2010-07-12 23:30:37','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\ncould you add a test ?',1117,'AAALwX//+zE='),(6,'2010-07-12 12:20:59','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\ndid not want to push this',1118,'AAALwX//+3E='),(2,'2010-07-12 19:15:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1119,'AAALwX//+2A='),(2,'2010-07-12 19:15:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1119,'AAALwX//+2E='),(2,'2010-07-12 19:16:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1120,'AAALwX//+14='),(2,'2010-07-12 19:16:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, not sure why we had this call in the first place.',1120,'AAALwX//+18='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1121,'AAALwn///7Y='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:24:48','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\n',1121,'AAALwn///8k='),(73,'2010-07-12 19:56:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',1121,'AAALwX//+08='),(4,'2010-07-12 21:22:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1121,'AAALwX//+0g='),(1,'2010-07-12 21:33:32','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1121,'AAALwX//+0U='),(1,'2010-07-12 19:41:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1121,'AAALwX//+1Q='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1122,'AAALwn///7c='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:24:43','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\n',1122,'AAALwn///8o='),(1,'2010-07-12 21:33:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1122,'AAALwX//+0Q='),(73,'2010-07-12 19:56:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',1122,'AAALwX//+1E='),(1,'2010-07-12 19:42:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1122,'AAALwX//+1M='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1123,'AAALwn///7g='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:24:35','Patch Set 3: IP review completed\n\n',1123,'AAALwn///8s='),(1,'2010-07-12 21:37:33','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1123,'AAALwX//+0E='),(73,'2010-07-12 19:56:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',1123,'AAALwX//+1A='),(73,'2010-07-12 19:38:41','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nForgot to change the scores to match the new scoring algorithm',1123,'AAALwX//+1o='),(73,'2010-07-12 21:48:47','Uploaded patch set 3.',1123,'AAALwX//+z0='),(1,'2010-07-12 21:52:25','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1123,'AAALwX//+zw='),(4,'2010-07-12 22:11:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',1124,'AAALwX//+zo='),(6,'2010-08-03 14:15:17','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1124,'AAALxn///6c='),(6,'2010-08-03 14:14:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',1124,'AAALxn///6g='),(NULL,'2010-08-03 14:11:46','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1124,'AAALxn///6k='),(6,'2010-08-03 14:11:46','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1124,'AAALxn///6o='),(6,'2010-08-03 14:15:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1124,'AAALxn///6Y='),(5,'2010-07-13 13:45:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',1125,'AAALwX//+y0='),(4,'2010-07-13 13:54:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1125,'AAALwX//+yk='),(4,'2010-07-13 13:54:47','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- verified',1125,'AAALwX//+yo='),(4,'2010-07-13 13:53:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',1125,'AAALwX//+ys='),(5,'2010-07-13 13:45:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\njust changed commit message',1125,'AAALwX//+yw='),(2,'2010-07-13 15:46:09','Change has been successfully pushed.',1126,'AAALwX//+yU='),(2,'2010-07-13 15:39:03','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nThis was testing for Shawn and I\'s webinar today!',1126,'AAALwX//+yY='),(2,'2010-07-13 16:56:03','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBad change.',1127,'AAALwX//+x4='),(NULL,'2010-07-13 16:36:05','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1127,'AAALwX//+x8='),(1,'2010-07-13 16:34:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1127,'AAALwX//+yA='),(2,'2010-07-13 16:34:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI think this change looks great!',1127,'AAALwX//+yE='),(1,'2010-07-13 16:33:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1127,'AAALwX//+yI='),(2,'2010-07-13 16:57:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDone.',1128,'AAALwX//+x0='),(2,'2010-07-13 16:57:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1128,'AAALwX//+xw='),(4,'2010-07-14 13:26:38','Patch Set 3:\n\nrebased to current master',1129,'AAALwX//+xE='),(4,'2010-07-14 13:26:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1129,'AAALwX//+xI='),(4,'2010-07-14 13:26:22','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nverified',1129,'AAALwX//+xM='),(4,'2010-07-14 13:25:14','Uploaded patch set 3.',1129,'AAALwX//+xQ='),(46,'2010-07-14 11:55:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',1129,'AAALwX//+xY='),(1,'2010-07-16 01:28:27','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nLogic looks sound, only style nits.',1130,'AAALwn////g='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1130,'AAALwn///7k='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:00:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1130,'AAALwn///9M='),(73,'2010-07-16 16:56:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',1130,'AAALwn///9Q='),(8,'2010-07-14 19:58:19','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',1131,'AAALwX//+w4='),(8,'2010-07-14 19:58:10','Patch Set 1:\n\nNot so fast! I admin this code is so ugly, it should probably be deleted for that reason, but there is difference\nfrom what the general refresh does and that is that this code reacts to changes in the index and triggers a refresh earlier than the standard workspace refresh, which the reason Egit reacts quickly when you do something to the repo outside of Eclipse. Without this you have to refresh manually all the time which you (read: I) will forget all the time. It is the RCS job that triggers then index change refresh.\n\nA possible cleanup action would be to kick the standard workspace Job, if possible when the index changes. When I wrote this code it was not accessible.',1131,'AAALwX//+w8='),(8,'2010-07-15 16:57:57','Patch Set 1:\n\nThe first version was independent of the workspace refresh job, but upon request I changed it. If you have automatic refresh you probably want it always be refreshed, but scanning all the time affects performance too much, so Eclipse scans with an interval.\n\nIdeally we should have a separate option for this and it should also interact with or replace the standard job so we don?t have two of them).',1131,'AAALwX//+wQ='),(44,'2010-07-15 14:41:21','Patch Set 1:\n\nHi Robin,\n\nSome comments on this:\n\n1. RCS detects changes in the index. Decorator reacts to these changes (e.g. staged, conflict).\n\n2. RCS also triggers RIRefresh to refresh Eclipse resources.\nYou mention this happens faster than when it\'s done by the standard Eclipse mechanism. Is this the right approach?\nShoudn\'t all external changes to files be handled in the same way (reaction time) regardless wheter the files relate to resources in a Git repository or not?\nWith the current implementation you have the following effect if Workspace auto refresh is enabled:\n\n  1. change a file in a project shared with Git using Notepad => immediate refresh of the Eclipse resource\n  2. change a file in a project NOT shared with Git using Notepad => refresh of the Eclipse resource after some delay.',1131,'AAALwX//+wY='),(44,'2010-09-17 13:44:24','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nSee http://egit.eclipse.org/r/1279 for alternative approach.',1131,'AAALy3///nQ='),(8,'2010-08-10 23:18:51','Patch Set 1:\n\nSee http://egit.eclipse.org/r/1279 for alternative approach.',1131,'AAALyH///3s='),(46,'2010-07-19 12:57:58','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nNeed to wait for http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1146',1132,'AAALw3///+0='),(46,'2010-07-22 15:45:20','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1132,'AAALw3///10='),(44,'2010-07-22 15:44:15','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1132,'AAALw3///14='),(46,'2010-07-22 15:45:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1132,'AAALw3///1w='),(46,'2010-07-22 14:11:35','Uploaded patch set 4.',1132,'AAALw3///2k='),(46,'2010-07-22 09:15:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',1132,'AAALw3///3I='),(46,'2010-07-16 17:23:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',1132,'AAALwn///80='),(46,'2010-07-15 18:34:31','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWill also add some tests for History view',1132,'AAALwX//+wI='),(44,'2010-07-16 11:32:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',1133,'AAALwn///+Q='),(4,'2010-07-16 08:15:28','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nLGTM but this change should not depend on the change removing RIRefresh. Please rebase to get rid of this dependency.',1133,'AAALwn///+w='),(4,'2010-07-16 14:36:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1133,'AAALwn///90='),(4,'2010-07-16 14:36:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1133,'AAALwn///9w='),(1,'2010-07-15 21:29:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1134,'AAALwn////4='),(1,'2010-07-15 21:29:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1134,'AAALwn////8='),(78,'2010-07-15 18:43:41','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAnother file included by mistake.',1135,'AAALwX//+v4='),(46,'2010-07-19 15:04:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1136,'AAALw3///+U='),(46,'2010-07-19 15:04:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1136,'AAALw3///+Y='),(1,'2010-07-15 23:01:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1137,'AAALwn////0='),(1,'2010-07-15 23:01:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1137,'AAALwn////w='),(44,'2010-07-19 14:59:16','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1138,'AAALw3///+c='),(6,'2010-07-19 14:48:21','Uploaded patch set 3.',1138,'AAALw3///+g='),(46,'2010-07-19 14:43:26','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nGreat!\nJust a style nit: putting the bugs into individual lines will generate the bug links properly.',1138,'AAALw3///+k='),(6,'2010-07-19 15:12:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1138,'AAALw3///+M='),(6,'2010-07-19 15:12:07','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1138,'AAALw3///+Q='),(5,'2010-07-19 16:02:31','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1138,'AAALw3///9k='),(44,'2010-07-16 13:47:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1138,'AAALwn///+E='),(6,'2010-07-16 12:03:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',1138,'AAALwn///+I='),(44,'2010-07-16 11:44:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1138,'AAALwn///+M='),(8,'2010-07-16 19:37:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1139,'AAALwn///6U='),(8,'2010-07-16 15:16:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',1139,'AAALwn///9c='),(46,'2010-07-16 15:12:24','Patch Set 1:\n\nOk, then my wording was incorrect.',1139,'AAALwn///9g='),(8,'2010-07-16 15:10:58','Patch Set 1:\n\nMy file system has subsecond resolution, but Java on Linux doesn\'t return it. See http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6939260',1139,'AAALwn///9k='),(8,'2010-07-16 15:16:54','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1139,'AAALwn///9Y='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1140,'AAALwn///7o='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:24:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1140,'AAALwn///8w='),(4,'2010-07-16 20:20:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1141,'AAALwn///6Q='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:38','Change has been successfully pushed.',1141,'AAALxH////A='),(4,'2010-07-16 22:51:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1142,'AAALw3////w='),(5,'2010-07-20 19:57:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1142,'AAALw3///5c='),(5,'2010-07-20 19:56:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',1142,'AAALw3///5g='),(5,'2010-07-20 19:57:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1142,'AAALw3///5Y='),(1,'2010-07-20 03:07:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1142,'AAALw3///9c='),(4,'2010-07-16 22:50:29','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1143,'AAALw3////0='),(5,'2010-07-20 19:56:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',1143,'AAALw3///5k='),(1,'2010-07-20 20:09:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1143,'AAALw3///5Q='),(1,'2010-07-20 20:09:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1143,'AAALw3///5U='),(1,'2010-07-20 03:09:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1143,'AAALw3///9Y='),(46,'2010-07-19 14:30:12','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI think we could/should reuse the input validator that can be obtained using\n\nValidationUtils.getRefNameInputValidator(repo, refPrefix)\n\nfor this.',1144,'AAALw3///+o='),(46,'2010-07-22 07:24:33','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWhen calling create branch from the repository view, the validator is asked to validate refs/heads/refs/heads/<myInput> instead of refs/heads/<myInput>.\nWe also have a little usbility issue if this is not used directly in an InputDialog. For example if you open the tag dialog (either from team or repo view context menu), the tag name will be shown as \"invalid ref name\", even though the user hasn\'t entered anything yet. Looks like we need to distinguish the two cases in some way or another: if the validator is used outside an InputDialog, the validator should accept empty names as ok. Might be a new method in ValidationUtils or something.',1144,'AAALw3///3Y='),(74,'2010-07-21 12:07:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1144,'AAALw3///4I='),(6,'2010-09-07 08:31:19','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1144,'AAALy3///9k='),(46,'2010-08-25 08:41:46','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nRebased, fixed, and cleaned up the dialog.',1144,'AAALyn///0E='),(46,'2010-08-25 08:40:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',1144,'AAALyn///0I='),(8,'2010-08-30 19:12:00','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1144,'AAALyn///ew='),(74,'2010-08-29 17:58:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1144,'AAALyn///ig='),(74,'2010-08-29 17:58:08','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',1144,'AAALyn///ik='),(74,'2010-08-29 17:57:30','Uploaded patch set 4.',1144,'AAALyn///io='),(46,'2010-07-19 08:41:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1145,'AAALw3////E='),(46,'2010-07-19 08:41:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1145,'AAALw3////I='),(46,'2010-07-19 12:56:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',1146,'AAALw3///+4='),(46,'2010-07-19 11:15:53','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nArrgh... Need a better solution which works both with and without delay...',1146,'AAALw3///+8='),(6,'2010-07-22 08:42:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1146,'AAALw3///3M='),(6,'2010-07-22 08:42:45','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1146,'AAALw3///3Q='),(46,'2010-07-21 10:21:49','Uploaded patch set 4.',1146,'AAALw3///4M='),(46,'2010-07-20 14:59:13','Uploaded patch set 3.',1146,'AAALw3///70='),(6,'2010-07-22 13:22:15','Uploaded patch set 3.',1147,'AAALw3///20='),(6,'2010-07-22 13:23:16','Patch Set 3:\n\nAdapted test case to new racy git handling',1147,'AAALw3///2w='),(6,'2010-07-20 11:47:10','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1147,'AAALw3///78='),(6,'2010-07-20 11:46:33','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1147,'AAALw3///8E='),(6,'2010-07-20 11:46:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',1147,'AAALw3///8I='),(5,'2010-07-20 08:51:01','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1147,'AAALw3///8s='),(2,'2010-08-05 19:01:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1147,'AAALx3///9k='),(2,'2010-08-05 19:01:53','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1147,'AAALx3///9o='),(6,'2010-07-28 09:02:23','Uploaded patch set 4.',1147,'AAALxH///00='),(6,'2010-07-28 09:03:32','Patch Set 4:\n\nrebased to master',1147,'AAALxH///0w='),(6,'2010-08-02 09:26:28','Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1147,'AAALxn///+E='),(6,'2010-08-02 09:20:22','Uploaded patch set 5.',1147,'AAALxn///+M='),(5,'2010-08-04 13:42:45','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1147,'AAALxn///4I='),(6,'2010-08-04 11:39:57','Uploaded patch set 7.',1147,'AAALxn///5A='),(5,'2010-08-04 00:22:30','Uploaded patch set 6.',1147,'AAALxn///5s='),(5,'2010-07-29 13:34:49','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nSince for the AddCommand tests you want assertions on the complete state of the index I suggest to use RepositoryTestCase.indexState(). This would remove a lot of lines of your tests.',1147,'AAALxX////s='),(6,'2010-07-22 13:22:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',1148,'AAALw3///24='),(2,'2010-08-05 19:02:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1148,'AAALx3///9c='),(2,'2010-08-05 19:02:59','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1148,'AAALx3///9g='),(6,'2010-07-28 09:02:22','Uploaded patch set 3.',1148,'AAALxH///04='),(6,'2010-07-28 09:03:50','Patch Set 3:\n\nrebased to master',1148,'AAALxH///0s='),(NULL,'2010-07-30 02:07:29','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',1148,'AAALxn////8='),(6,'2010-08-04 11:54:44','Uploaded patch set 4.',1148,'AAALxn///4g='),(5,'2010-08-04 13:40:41','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1148,'AAALxn///4M='),(NULL,'2010-08-02 16:26:51','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 4 of I85a8a760, however the current patch set is 5.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1148,'AAALxn///7c='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:04:14','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1148,'AAALxX////k='),(5,'2010-07-29 13:47:36','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1148,'AAALxX////o='),(NULL,'2010-07-29 14:19:18','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* I85a8a76097d0197ef689a289288ba82addb92fc9\n',1148,'AAALxX////Q='),(NULL,'2010-07-29 17:40:28','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',1148,'AAALxX///94='),(46,'2010-07-20 15:17:24','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',1149,'AAALw3///7c='),(46,'2010-07-20 15:17:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1149,'AAALw3///7U='),(46,'2010-07-20 15:17:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1149,'AAALw3///7Y='),(1,'2010-07-20 15:01:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1150,'AAALw3///7k='),(1,'2010-07-20 15:01:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1150,'AAALw3///7s='),(1,'2010-07-20 15:01:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1151,'AAALw3///7o='),(1,'2010-07-20 15:01:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1151,'AAALw3///7w='),(1,'2010-07-21 17:08:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1152,'AAALw3///34='),(1,'2010-07-21 17:08:00','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1152,'AAALw3///38='),(44,'2010-07-21 07:48:04','Uploaded patch set 4.',1152,'AAALw3///4k='),(44,'2010-07-21 07:45:47','Patch Set 3: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1152,'AAALw3///4o='),(1,'2010-07-20 15:53:00','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1152,'AAALw3///7A='),(44,'2010-07-20 15:10:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',1152,'AAALw3///7g='),(44,'2010-07-20 15:39:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',1152,'AAALw3///7Q='),(6,'2010-07-22 08:07:02','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nIs obsolete because of http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1156',1153,'AAALw3///3U='),(1,'2010-07-20 20:37:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1153,'AAALw3///5A='),(1,'2010-07-20 16:16:58','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1153,'AAALw3///64='),(6,'2010-07-20 15:42:40','Patch Set 1:\n\nWill conflict with http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1147 if that is submitted before.',1153,'AAALw3///7M='),(1,'2010-07-20 17:27:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1154,'AAALw3///6c='),(1,'2010-07-20 17:27:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1154,'AAALw3///6Y='),(1,'2010-07-20 17:28:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1155,'AAALw3///6Q='),(1,'2010-07-20 17:28:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1155,'AAALw3///6U='),(1,'2010-07-21 17:33:20','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1156,'AAALw3///30='),(1,'2010-07-21 17:34:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1156,'AAALw3///3k='),(1,'2010-07-21 17:34:39','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1156,'AAALw3///3o='),(1,'2010-07-21 17:34:23','Uploaded patch set 5.',1156,'AAALw3///3s='),(NULL,'2010-07-21 17:33:20','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1156,'AAALw3///3w='),(32,'2010-07-20 21:14:53','Patch Set 3:\n\nI can\'t push to this Change-Id, sorry. Here is a pastebin demonstrating the problem and a quick 3-line solution:\nhttp://pastebin.com/2GDdCZVv',1156,'AAALw3///44='),(32,'2010-07-20 21:01:26','Patch Set 3:\n\nCaused by a faulty check for the nameOnly ignore condition. I\'ll upload a quick fix to demonstrate the issue.',1156,'AAALw3///48='),(6,'2010-07-21 08:54:40','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nIncluded the change posted by Charley. Now the tests are green.',1156,'AAALw3///4c='),(6,'2010-07-21 08:52:47','Uploaded patch set 4.',1156,'AAALw3///4g='),(1,'2010-07-20 18:54:58','Patch Set 2:\n\nCleaned up the tests, so this now compiles and passes.  But I can\'t say I\'ve fully covered the conditions yet, e.g. the negation rules like \"!foo\" aren\'t tested right now.',1156,'AAALw3///50='),(1,'2010-07-20 18:54:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',1156,'AAALw3///54='),(1,'2010-07-20 20:31:46','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nMore tests.  Currently testSlashOnlyMatchesDirectory is broken.  The test is correct according to `man gitignore` so our code is broken.  It seems that IgnoreRule is matching the rule \"out/\" with \"out\" even though \"out\" is a file.',1156,'AAALw3///5I='),(1,'2010-07-20 20:30:28','Uploaded patch set 3.',1156,'AAALw3///5M='),(32,'2010-07-20 18:18:32','Patch Set 1:\n\nThanks for the suggestion, I will take a look at reimplementing the tests, etc. with your patches.\n\nMight need to make a slight change to the logic so NOT_IGNORED breaks instead of returns. I documented this case on my Eclipse wiki talk page, but if the folder \"/a\" is ignored then the file \"/a/file.c\" might be ignored even if it is expressly set as NOT_IGNORE by its local .gitignore file. Perhaps this would be naturally resolved by the order in which nodes are parsed? I will test.',1156,'AAALw3///6E='),(5,'2010-07-20 19:52:10','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nforgot to add Change-ID',1157,'AAALw3///5s='),(5,'2010-07-20 19:52:34','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nforgot to add Change-ID',1158,'AAALw3///5o='),(6,'2010-07-21 09:41:56','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\nDepends on the JGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1148',1159,'AAALw3///4Y='),(6,'2010-08-06 12:28:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1159,'AAALx3///7o='),(6,'2010-08-06 12:28:01','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased',1159,'AAALx3///7s='),(6,'2010-08-06 12:25:41','Uploaded patch set 5.',1159,'AAALx3///7w='),(44,'2010-07-30 09:19:00','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nLooks good. One small issue: untracked files are shown with a filled checkbox. This is confusing because the untracked files are not committed.',1159,'AAALxn////g='),(6,'2010-07-30 08:32:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',1159,'AAALxn////k='),(44,'2010-07-30 09:35:04','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1159,'AAALxn////U='),(6,'2010-08-02 15:13:55','Patch Set 4:\n\nDo not submit until Dependend JGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1148 is in master.',1159,'AAALxn///78='),(44,'2010-08-02 15:13:15','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1159,'AAALxn///8A='),(6,'2010-08-02 15:08:33','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1159,'AAALxn///8E='),(6,'2010-08-02 15:05:39','Uploaded patch set 4.',1159,'AAALxn///8Q='),(6,'2010-08-02 14:57:23','Uploaded patch set 3.',1159,'AAALxn///8Y='),(46,'2010-07-22 06:56:35','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCurrently, the test fails because the localized value for the command name in plugin.properties is not found.',1160,'AAALw3///3g='),(74,'2010-07-26 22:30:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1160,'AAALxH////0='),(46,'2010-07-27 06:48:36','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWhen renaming a remote branch, the result is a local branch (when trying to rename refs/remaotes/origin/master, the new branch will be refs/heads/<new name>)...\nAlso, there is a NullPointerException when renaming a remote branch. This is probably a bug somewhere else, as there is also a NPE when renaming a remote branch from the Team->Branch... menu.',1160,'AAALxH////w='),(74,'2010-08-29 19:32:10','Uploaded patch set 4.',1160,'AAALyn///ic='),(74,'2010-08-29 19:33:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1160,'AAALyn///iU='),(74,'2010-08-29 19:33:09','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nFixed compile error in tests (old UIMessage used).',1160,'AAALyn///iY='),(46,'2010-08-25 09:29:28','Uploaded patch set 3.',1160,'AAALyn///z0='),(46,'2010-08-25 09:30:31','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nRebased, fixed, added menu label and mnemonic, externalized, adjusted test.',1160,'AAALyn///zw='),(1,'2010-07-22 18:10:19','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',1161,'AAALw3///0M='),(5,'2010-07-22 22:06:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',1161,'AAALw3///zk='),(5,'2010-07-22 22:03:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',1161,'AAALw3///zo='),(1,'2010-07-28 19:18:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1161,'AAALxH///xA='),(1,'2010-07-28 19:18:21','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1161,'AAALxH///xE='),(1,'2010-07-28 19:18:13','Uploaded patch set 4.',1161,'AAALxH///xI='),(5,'2010-07-28 15:19:26','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nrebased change, adapted change to new way how to get/access the index. Looks good to me.',1161,'AAALxH///z0='),(5,'2010-07-28 15:16:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',1161,'AAALxH///z8='),(1,'2010-07-22 17:53:16','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1162,'AAALw3///0k='),(5,'2010-07-22 22:39:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',1162,'AAALw3///zI='),(5,'2010-07-22 22:38:54','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1162,'AAALw3///zM='),(1,'2010-07-27 18:51:10','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1162,'AAALxH///10='),(1,'2010-07-27 18:51:05','Uploaded patch set 3.',1162,'AAALxH///14='),(1,'2010-07-27 18:51:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1162,'AAALxH///1w='),(1,'2010-07-27 18:47:41','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI\'ll fix up the decode issue during cherry-pick.',1162,'AAALxH///2E='),(1,'2010-07-22 17:33:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1163,'AAALw3///1c='),(1,'2010-07-22 17:33:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1163,'AAALw3///1Y='),(6,'2010-07-22 09:29:15','Patch Set 1:\n\nI have not generated a Change-Id, because I had amended the commit from http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1153 which was abandoned. EGit calculated the Change-Id of the abandoned commit, so gerrit did not let me push.',1163,'AAALw3///3E='),(1,'2010-07-22 17:44:33','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1164,'AAALw3///00='),(1,'2010-07-27 17:12:17','Patch Set 1:\n\nPlease rebase this change onto current master.',1164,'AAALxH///38='),(1,'2010-08-30 21:37:05','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nThis is too stale relative to master due to the volume of changes that went in over the past month.',1164,'AAALyn///co='),(1,'2010-07-22 17:38:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1165,'AAALw3///1I='),(1,'2010-07-22 17:38:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1165,'AAALw3///1M='),(1,'2010-07-22 17:40:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1166,'AAALw3///08='),(1,'2010-07-22 17:40:54','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1166,'AAALw3///1A='),(6,'2010-07-22 12:57:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',1166,'AAALw3///3A='),(6,'2010-07-22 12:58:31','Patch Set 1:\n\nDepends on JGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1166',1167,'AAALw3///28='),(6,'2010-07-23 07:24:57','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1167,'AAALw3///y4='),(15,'2010-07-22 22:33:04','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1167,'AAALw3///zQ='),(6,'2010-07-28 14:44:26','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebased to master',1167,'AAALxH///0A='),(6,'2010-07-28 14:43:49','Uploaded patch set 3.',1167,'AAALxH///0E='),(6,'2010-07-28 14:39:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',1167,'AAALxH///0I='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:07:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1167,'AAALxX////c='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:07:41','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1167,'AAALxX////g='),(46,'2010-07-22 14:59:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1168,'AAALw3///2A='),(46,'2010-07-22 14:59:53','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1168,'AAALw3///2E='),(44,'2010-07-22 14:53:56','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1168,'AAALw3///2I='),(46,'2010-07-22 13:54:08','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nJust a style nit',1168,'AAALw3///2o='),(44,'2010-07-22 14:52:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',1168,'AAALw3///2Q='),(5,'2010-07-22 15:15:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI seperated this feature into his own change. I was previously added to change 825 (which is from now on dependent on this change).',1169,'AAALw3///18='),(1,'2010-07-22 17:37:18','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1169,'AAALw3///1Q='),(5,'2010-07-22 22:53:28','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1169,'AAALw3///zA='),(1,'2010-07-27 18:36:01','Patch Set 2:\n\nHmm, after re-reading the tests it looks good to me.\n\nChristian, please rebase your other work on this and see if the new implementation works as expected.  If it doesn\'t, please try to distill the problem into a new test case so we can test for it, and fix it.',1169,'AAALxH///2M='),(1,'2010-07-27 18:32:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI think ps 2 does the right thing now, but I\'m not sure the test cases are sufficient coverage.',1169,'AAALxH///2Q='),(1,'2010-07-27 18:32:02','Uploaded patch set 2.',1169,'AAALxH///2U='),(5,'2010-07-28 15:39:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',1169,'AAALxH///zc='),(5,'2010-07-28 15:41:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1169,'AAALxH///zU='),(5,'2010-07-28 15:41:08','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nall tests green!',1169,'AAALxH///zY='),(73,'2010-07-22 20:59:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',1170,'AAALw3///0A='),(1,'2010-07-23 16:56:52','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(9 inline comments)\n\n',1170,'AAALw3///x0='),(73,'2010-07-26 20:09:18','Uploaded patch set 3.',1170,'AAALw3///xM='),(73,'2010-07-26 18:52:59','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1170,'AAALw3///xQ='),(73,'2010-07-23 18:03:13','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1170,'AAALw3///xs='),(73,'2010-07-26 21:16:50','Uploaded patch set 4.',1170,'AAALxH////4='),(73,'2010-07-26 21:12:16','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nArg, forgot to fix a couple things.',1170,'AAALxH////8='),(1,'2010-07-28 00:43:15','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1170,'AAALxH///1g='),(1,'2010-07-28 01:16:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1170,'AAALxH///1I='),(1,'2010-07-28 01:16:07','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased onto current master and fixed object lookup to use the new ObjectReader API that is required in the more recent JGit.',1170,'AAALxH///1M='),(1,'2010-07-28 01:15:44','Uploaded patch set 7.',1170,'AAALxH///1Q='),(73,'2010-07-27 19:34:20','Uploaded patch set 5.',1170,'AAALxH///1s='),(73,'2010-07-28 01:06:56','Uploaded patch set 6.',1170,'AAALxH///1U='),(73,'2010-07-28 01:06:36','Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1170,'AAALxH///1Y='),(1,'2010-07-27 18:13:43','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(8 inline comments)\n\n',1170,'AAALxH///2c='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:37','Change has been successfully pushed.',1171,'AAALxH////E='),(44,'2010-07-26 08:19:45','Patch Set 2: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1172,'AAALw3///xc='),(44,'2010-07-26 08:21:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1172,'AAALw3///xY='),(1,'2010-07-23 16:25:29','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nAside from these inline comments, I want to submit I7c7a05e443a48d32c836173a409ee7d340c70796 first, as this has quite a few merge conflicts due to the refactoring.',1172,'AAALw3///yc='),(44,'2010-07-23 12:04:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',1172,'AAALw3///ys='),(1,'2010-07-27 17:03:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1172,'AAALxH///4I='),(1,'2010-07-27 17:03:40','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1172,'AAALxH///4M='),(1,'2010-07-27 17:03:33','Uploaded patch set 5.',1172,'AAALxH///4Q='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:53:01','Uploaded patch set 4.',1172,'AAALxH///4U='),(46,'2010-07-28 09:59:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',1173,'AAALxH///0g='),(6,'2010-07-28 15:17:48','Patch Set 2:\n\nWhen I select a commit where a branch points to I expect that the branch is checked out and not the commit. When there is more than one branch there could be a dialog to choose the branch.',1173,'AAALxH///z4='),(46,'2010-07-28 16:06:14','Uploaded patch set 3.',1173,'AAALxH///zQ='),(6,'2010-08-02 12:38:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1173,'AAALxn///9E='),(6,'2010-08-02 12:38:07','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1173,'AAALxn///9I='),(6,'2010-08-02 12:35:30','Uploaded patch set 4.',1173,'AAALxn///9M='),(NULL,'2010-08-02 12:32:07','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1173,'AAALxn///9Q='),(6,'2010-08-02 12:32:06','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1173,'AAALxn///9U='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:42:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1174,'AAALxH///4c='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:42:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',1174,'AAALxH///4g='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:42:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1174,'AAALxH///4Y='),(6,'2010-07-28 15:31:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1175,'AAALxH///zg='),(6,'2010-07-28 15:31:22','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1175,'AAALxH///zk='),(6,'2010-07-28 15:30:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',1175,'AAALxH///zo='),(NULL,'2010-07-28 15:29:21','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1175,'AAALxH///zs='),(6,'2010-07-28 15:29:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1175,'AAALxH///zw='),(46,'2010-07-28 10:02:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',1176,'AAALxH///0c='),(6,'2010-08-03 14:21:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1176,'AAALxn///6Q='),(6,'2010-08-03 14:21:26','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1176,'AAALxn///6U='),(74,'2010-07-27 10:05:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',1177,'AAALxH////c='),(46,'2010-07-27 06:53:47','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nAbsolutely. My fault... Unfortunately, this introduces tabs, while the rest of the file is formatted using spaces.',1177,'AAALxH////s='),(46,'2010-07-28 05:58:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1177,'AAALxH///08='),(46,'2010-07-28 05:58:01','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased to current master. Thanks Benny.',1177,'AAALxH///1A='),(46,'2010-07-28 05:56:47','Uploaded patch set 3.',1177,'AAALxH///1E='),(44,'2010-07-27 09:40:54','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1178,'AAALxH////g='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:37','Change has been successfully pushed.',1178,'AAALxH////I='),(1,'2010-07-27 18:49:57','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1178,'AAALxH///18='),(1,'2010-07-27 17:49:36','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(14 inline comments)\n\n',1179,'AAALxH///3A='),(6,'2010-07-30 11:41:10','Patch Set 2:\n\nWould this patch fix bug 301775?',1179,'AAALxn////Q='),(51,'2010-07-29 14:22:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',1179,'AAALxX////I='),(51,'2010-07-29 14:25:37','Patch Set 1: (14 inline comments)\n\n',1179,'AAALxX///+0='),(51,'2010-08-11 13:10:26','Patch Set 3:\n\nCompilation problems in org.eclipse.jgit.test module fixed.\nRebased onto commit fe76b410386dc6ec45195878e9a59f74f2768685.',1179,'AAALyH///2o='),(51,'2010-08-11 13:05:05','Uploaded patch set 3.',1179,'AAALyH///2s='),(8,'2010-08-19 18:16:47','Patch Set 6:\n\nIt\'s not done with this though. autocrlf was quite unreliable so it has been (hopefull) fixed in C Git, including a new option core.eol.',1179,'AAALyH///ak='),(8,'2010-08-19 18:10:13','Patch Set 6:\n\nThere is a bug for thise one alreaddy: 320519',1179,'AAALyH///ao='),(2,'2010-08-19 02:22:26','Patch Set 6:\n\nHey Marc, while you\'re at it, can you create a bugzilla account and cc yourself to \n\nhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=318473 \n\nIt\'s easier if you do a confirmation there that you wrote 100% of the code...\n\nThis is required as part of Eclipse\'s legal process.',1179,'AAALyH///e0='),(1,'2010-08-19 01:14:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1179,'AAALyH///hk='),(1,'2010-08-19 01:14:55','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCherry-picked and reworked the compute code to be shorter and more generic for later support of gitattributes and generic user-defined clean filters.\n\nAt this point I think its good enough to submit.  Thanks Marc.',1179,'AAALyH///ho='),(1,'2010-08-19 01:13:52','Uploaded patch set 5.',1179,'AAALyH///hs='),(1,'2010-08-19 01:24:14','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nCode is good but this now needs a CQ.  I missed the size of the patch before (its 627 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)) and submitted it too early.  So its backed out and is now pending as CQ 4419.',1179,'AAALyH///hU='),(1,'2010-08-19 01:20:49','Uploaded patch set 6.',1179,'AAALyH///hY='),(51,'2010-08-12 16:18:20','Patch Set 3: (13 inline comments)\n\n',1179,'AAALyH///wU='),(51,'2010-08-12 16:17:27','Uploaded patch set 4.',1179,'AAALyH///wY='),(1,'2010-08-11 23:23:25','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(13 inline comments)\n\n',1179,'AAALyH///zM='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:05:23','Uploaded patch set 7.',1179,'AAALyX///10='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:05:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1179,'AAALyX///1s='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:05:41','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1179,'AAALyX///1w='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:37','Change has been successfully pushed.',1180,'AAALxH////M='),(1,'2010-07-27 17:11:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1181,'AAALxH///4A='),(1,'2010-07-27 17:11:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1181,'AAALxH///4E='),(1,'2010-07-27 18:31:50','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nShould have been patch set 2 of Iffcc7090aaec743dd6f3fd1a333cac96c587ae5d.',1182,'AAALxH///2Y='),(5,'2010-07-28 09:53:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1183,'AAALxH///0k='),(5,'2010-07-28 09:53:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nsince egit is now broken on all platforms because of this problem I\'ll accept this hot-fix.\nBut I will directly open a bugzilla bug telling that the sorting of tags has been removed from Plotwalk and that we have to introduce it back. Then I\'ll try to fix it.',1183,'AAALxH///0o='),(46,'2010-07-28 11:49:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',1184,'AAALxH///0Q='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:24:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1184,'AAALxX////A='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:25:13','Patch Set 2:\n\nCan you rebase?',1184,'AAALxX///+4='),(NULL,'2010-07-29 14:25:00','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1184,'AAALxX///+8='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:29:01','Patch Set 4:\n\nDone.',1184,'AAALxX///+c='),(46,'2010-07-29 14:28:58','Uploaded patch set 5.',1184,'AAALxX///+g='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:28:49','Uploaded patch set 4.',1184,'AAALxX///+k='),(NULL,'2010-07-29 14:26:49','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1184,'AAALxX///+o='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:26:48','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood to go.',1184,'AAALxX///+s='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:29:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1184,'AAALxX///+U='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:26:32','Uploaded patch set 3.',1184,'AAALxX///+w='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:29:09','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1184,'AAALxX///+Y='),(1,'2010-07-28 18:57:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1185,'AAALxH///yE='),(1,'2010-07-28 18:57:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1185,'AAALxH///yI='),(1,'2010-07-28 18:56:12','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1185,'AAALxH///yM='),(1,'2010-07-28 18:55:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',1185,'AAALxH///yQ='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1186,'AAALx3///8s='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1186,'AAALx3///8w='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1187,'AAALx3///8g='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1187,'AAALx3///8U='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1188,'AAALx3///8k='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1188,'AAALx3///8Q='),(79,'2010-07-28 19:39:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1188,'AAALxH///w8='),(1,'2010-07-28 19:13:57','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1188,'AAALxH///xc='),(1,'2010-07-28 19:14:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',1188,'AAALxH///xM='),(79,'2010-07-28 19:03:19','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nJust some Javadoc nitpicking.',1188,'AAALxH///xs='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1189,'AAALx3///8M='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1189,'AAALx3///8o='),(1,'2010-07-28 19:14:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',1189,'AAALxH///xQ='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:30','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1190,'AAALx3///80='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1190,'AAALx3///8c='),(1,'2010-07-28 19:14:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',1190,'AAALxH///xU='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:29','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1191,'AAALx3///84='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1191,'AAALx3///8Y='),(1,'2010-07-28 19:14:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',1191,'AAALxH///xY='),(5,'2010-07-28 21:13:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1192,'AAALxH///w0='),(5,'2010-07-28 21:13:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1192,'AAALxH///w4='),(1,'2010-07-28 21:42:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1193,'AAALxX////4='),(1,'2010-07-28 21:42:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1193,'AAALxX////8='),(1,'2010-07-28 21:44:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1194,'AAALxX////0='),(1,'2010-07-28 21:44:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1194,'AAALxX////w='),(1,'2010-08-04 18:02:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1195,'AAALxn///2M='),(1,'2010-08-04 18:02:00','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1195,'AAALxn///2Q='),(1,'2010-08-04 18:01:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',1195,'AAALxn///2U='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:10:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1196,'AAALxX////U='),(2,'2010-07-29 14:10:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good... it\'s nice to clean up our menus. I\'m considering moving Untrack and some other menu entries to a Staging view once we have it... this would simplify the menua bit for newcomers.',1196,'AAALxX////Y='),(1,'2010-07-29 17:40:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1197,'AAALxX///90='),(1,'2010-07-29 17:40:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1197,'AAALxX///98='),(6,'2010-07-30 07:40:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1198,'AAALxn////4='),(6,'2010-07-30 08:31:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',1198,'AAALxn////o='),(2,'2010-07-30 16:20:14','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1198,'AAALxn///+c='),(2,'2010-07-30 16:20:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1198,'AAALxn///+Y='),(51,'2010-07-29 14:21:13','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nDuplicate of change 1179.',1199,'AAALxX////M='),(46,'2010-07-29 15:01:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1200,'AAALxX///+A='),(46,'2010-07-29 15:01:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSince Stefan has just left the office, I\'m submitting this as hotfix.',1200,'AAALxX///+E='),(46,'2010-07-30 07:43:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1201,'AAALxn////0='),(46,'2010-07-30 07:43:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1201,'AAALxn////w='),(46,'2010-07-30 08:15:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',1202,'AAALxn////s='),(46,'2010-08-02 07:07:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1202,'AAALxn///+Q='),(2,'2010-07-30 16:22:07','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nAgree, after all the bug reports this is definitely the right thing to do.',1202,'AAALxn///+U='),(1,'2010-07-30 14:34:34','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1203,'AAALxn////A='),(6,'2010-07-30 15:58:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',1203,'AAALxn///+k='),(6,'2010-07-30 15:56:36','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1203,'AAALxn///+w='),(5,'2010-08-03 08:32:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1203,'AAALxn///64='),(5,'2010-08-03 08:32:46','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1203,'AAALxn///68='),(1,'2010-07-30 14:33:07','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1204,'AAALxn////I='),(6,'2010-07-30 15:58:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',1204,'AAALxn///+g='),(6,'2010-07-30 15:57:06','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1204,'AAALxn///+o='),(6,'2010-08-04 11:44:00','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nchanges are already incorporated in change 1230',1204,'AAALxn///4o='),(5,'2010-08-04 00:26:28','Patch Set 2: Do not submit\n\nthese changes are already incorporated in change 1230',1204,'AAALxn///5o='),(2,'2010-07-30 15:28:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1205,'AAALxn///+4='),(2,'2010-07-30 15:28:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems reasonable.',1205,'AAALxn///+8='),(2,'2010-08-02 14:12:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1206,'AAALxn///8o='),(2,'2010-08-02 14:12:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is fine given that the API appeared in 3.5',1206,'AAALxn///8s='),(44,'2010-08-04 14:48:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nLooks good.',1207,'AAALxn///38='),(2,'2010-08-04 15:42:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1207,'AAALxn///3A='),(2,'2010-08-04 15:42:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1207,'AAALxn///3E='),(2,'2010-08-04 15:42:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1207,'AAALxn///3I='),(2,'2010-08-02 15:46:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',1208,'AAALxn///70='),(2,'2010-08-02 15:47:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1208,'AAALxn///7s='),(2,'2010-08-02 15:47:21','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThe code works.\n\nNow we just need to support .gitignore via the commit action.',1208,'AAALxn///7w='),(2,'2010-08-02 14:07:26','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nLooks like a step in the right direction... however, I\'m getting a CCE.\n\njava.lang.ClassCastException: org.eclipse.egit.core.AdaptableFileTreeIterator cannot be cast to org.eclipse.egit.core.ContainerTreeIterator\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.decorators.DecoratableResourceAdapter$RecursiveStateFilter.include(DecoratableResourceAdapter.java:211)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.treewalk.filter.AndTreeFilter$Binary.include(AndTreeFilter.java:131)',1208,'AAALxn///84='),(44,'2010-08-02 15:03:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',1208,'AAALxn///8U='),(2,'2010-08-02 14:08:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.\n\nIn the future, we should note that we should move to the Team API once it has new features that prevents us from duplicating code.',1209,'AAALxn///80='),(2,'2010-08-02 14:08:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1209,'AAALxn///8w='),(2,'2010-08-04 13:38:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',1210,'AAALxn///4c='),(2,'2010-08-04 13:38:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1210,'AAALxn///4U='),(2,'2010-08-04 13:38:39','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nChanged to use M for merge.\n\nLooks great otherwise!',1210,'AAALxn///4Y='),(46,'2010-08-04 08:48:04','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nE was used in the shortcut to be the same as in SVS (see the screenshot attached to bug 314096). I personally wouldn\'t mind to use M.',1210,'AAALxn///5g='),(2,'2010-08-03 17:04:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, share the same sentiments as Stefan regarding shortcut choice.',1210,'AAALxn///5w='),(6,'2010-08-03 14:01:42','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1210,'AAALxn///6s='),(46,'2010-08-06 11:23:18','Patch Set 1:\n\nI introduced a new bug here: branch deletion does not work any longer for multiple branches. Found this by a UI test. Fix is under way.',1211,'AAALx3///70='),(74,'2010-08-02 15:43:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nYep, works as expected.',1211,'AAALxn///74='),(2,'2010-08-02 15:50:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1211,'AAALxn///7k='),(2,'2010-08-02 15:50:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1211,'AAALxn///7o='),(1,'2010-08-02 16:26:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1212,'AAALxn///7g='),(1,'2010-08-02 16:26:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1212,'AAALxn///7Y='),(46,'2010-08-06 11:20:29','Patch Set 2:\n\nUnfortunately, this has destroyed some UI tests that are trying to set a commit message in the commit dialog using SWTBot.textWithLabel().setText(). The (some?) text control is returned by textWithLabel(), but setText() does not have an effect... Any idea?',1213,'AAALx3///74='),(2,'2010-08-03 16:52:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1213,'AAALxn///6E='),(2,'2010-08-03 16:52:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. I added additional support for cut/copy/paste/selectall',1213,'AAALxn///6I='),(2,'2010-08-03 16:51:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1213,'AAALxn///6M='),(46,'2010-08-03 06:51:05','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nCool! What would be missing is a way to re-activate spell checking after it has been deactivated using the context menu.\nAlso, I wonder if we can make this locale (language) aware?',1213,'AAALxn///7I='),(8,'2010-08-08 17:22:59','Patch Set 2:\n\nFix posted. See dependency',1213,'AAALyH///+o='),(8,'2010-08-08 16:52:34','Patch Set 2:\n\nI like this one! Thanks.',1213,'AAALyH///+s='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',1214,'AAALyH////Y='),(4,'2010-08-13 13:53:10','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1214,'AAALyH///rs='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1214,'AAALyX///3Y='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:12','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1214,'AAALyX///4M='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1214,'AAALyX///4Y='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',1215,'AAALyH////Q='),(4,'2010-08-13 13:52:30','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1215,'AAALyH///rw='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:14','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1215,'AAALyX///34='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1215,'AAALyX///3M='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:57','Uploaded patch set 3.',1215,'AAALyX///4Q='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1216,'AAALyH////o='),(4,'2010-08-13 13:51:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1216,'AAALyH///r0='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:13','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1216,'AAALyX///38='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1216,'AAALyX///3I='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1216,'AAALyX///4o='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1217,'AAALyH////s='),(4,'2010-08-13 13:51:17','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1217,'AAALyH///r4='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1217,'AAALyX///3U='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:13','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1217,'AAALyX///4A='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1217,'AAALyX///4s='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',1218,'AAALyH////g='),(4,'2010-08-13 13:50:46','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1218,'AAALyH///r8='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1218,'AAALyX///3Q='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:13','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1218,'AAALyX///4E='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1218,'AAALyX///4g='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1219,'AAALyH////k='),(4,'2010-08-13 13:50:06','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1219,'AAALyH///sA='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1219,'AAALyX///2s='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:17','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1219,'AAALyX///2w='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1219,'AAALyX///4k='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',1220,'AAALyH////4='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1220,'AAALyX///2k='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:18','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1220,'AAALyX///2o='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',1220,'AAALyX///44='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',1221,'AAALyH////8='),(4,'2010-08-13 13:47:41','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1221,'AAALyH///sE='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:19','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1221,'AAALyX///2c='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1221,'AAALyX///2Y='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',1221,'AAALyX///48='),(1,'2010-08-05 19:42:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',1222,'AAALx3///9A='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1222,'AAALyH////w='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1222,'AAALyX///2Q='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:19','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1222,'AAALyX///2U='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:55','Uploaded patch set 4.',1222,'AAALyX///4w='),(1,'2010-08-05 19:42:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',1223,'AAALx3///9E='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1223,'AAALyH////0='),(4,'2010-08-13 13:30:21','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1223,'AAALyH///sQ='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1223,'AAALyX///2A='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:19','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1223,'AAALyX///2M='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:55','Uploaded patch set 4.',1223,'AAALyX///40='),(1,'2010-08-05 19:42:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',1224,'AAALx3///88='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:58','Uploaded patch set 3.',1224,'AAALyH////U='),(4,'2010-08-13 13:19:09','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1224,'AAALyH///sU='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1224,'AAALyX///2E='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:18','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1224,'AAALyX///2g='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:57','Uploaded patch set 4.',1224,'AAALyX///4U='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:13','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1224,'AAALyX///5A='),(2,'2010-08-19 18:38:07','Patch Set 5:\n\nSounds reasonable, I filed a bug for this...\n\nhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=323182',1225,'AAALyH///aE='),(1,'2010-08-19 18:32:23','Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1225,'AAALyH///aU='),(2,'2010-08-19 17:17:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1225,'AAALyH///bc='),(2,'2010-08-19 17:17:25','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1225,'AAALyH///bg='),(2,'2010-08-19 17:17:03','Uploaded patch set 5.',1225,'AAALyH///bk='),(5,'2010-08-19 13:55:07','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1225,'AAALyH///c0='),(5,'2010-08-19 13:54:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',1225,'AAALyH///c4='),(4,'2010-08-19 14:17:12','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1225,'AAALyH///cc='),(5,'2010-08-19 13:58:58','Uploaded patch set 4.',1225,'AAALyH///co='),(5,'2010-08-19 13:56:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',1225,'AAALyH///cs='),(4,'2010-08-18 11:57:39','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',1225,'AAALyH///kg='),(5,'2010-08-03 07:25:51','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI am not fully happy with the state of the merge, but basic\ntests work and I want to share early how the merge is intendet\nto look like.\nThe main work is done in ResolveMerger and MergeCommand. I would be thankful for comments on these classes.\n\nMissing are still a lot of tests, especially for error situations. Rename detection is also missing yet.',1226,'AAALxn///7A='),(6,'2010-08-18 09:13:58','Patch Set 3: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1226,'AAALyH///k4='),(5,'2010-08-17 22:04:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',1226,'AAALyH///mQ='),(6,'2010-08-12 13:23:11','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI added some failing test cases. Please fix them.',1226,'AAALyH///yE='),(6,'2010-08-12 13:21:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',1226,'AAALyH///yI='),(5,'2010-08-23 08:49:43','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nAll merge tests succeed now',1226,'AAALyn///+s='),(5,'2010-08-23 08:30:30','Uploaded patch set 5.',1226,'AAALyn///+w='),(1,'2010-08-23 23:38:31','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\nSome early notes.  Given that this needs a rebase based on Stefan\'s remark I\'m punting on further review right now.',1226,'AAALyn///7c='),(6,'2010-08-23 14:29:18','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nPlesae rebase. There are conflicts and compile errors which are difiicult to solve.',1226,'AAALyn///9k='),(5,'2010-08-30 23:31:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1226,'AAALyn///cQ='),(5,'2010-08-30 23:31:00','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\njust rebased',1226,'AAALyn///cU='),(5,'2010-08-30 23:30:17','Uploaded patch set 7.',1226,'AAALyn///cY='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:44:08','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nPlease rebase to resolve the conflicts.\n\nThis is ready to go imho.',1226,'AAALyn///d8='),(5,'2010-08-25 10:16:40','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n- removed GitIndex usage in MergeCommandTest\n- allow to inject DirCache and WorkingTreeIterator\n- added missing license headers',1226,'AAALyn///zg='),(5,'2010-08-25 10:12:45','Uploaded patch set 6.',1226,'AAALyn///zo='),(5,'2010-08-20 16:17:41','Uploaded patch set 4.',1226,'AAALyX///74='),(5,'2010-08-20 16:25:36','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- rebased to master\n- fixed minor issues\n- removed last reference to GitIndex \n- this proposal still leads to two failing merge-tests probably caused by removal of GitIndex usage',1226,'AAALyX///7w='),(2,'2010-08-03 16:53:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1227,'AAALxn///58='),(2,'2010-08-03 16:53:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1227,'AAALxn///6A='),(2,'2010-08-03 17:03:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1228,'AAALxn///50='),(2,'2010-08-03 17:03:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1228,'AAALxn///54='),(44,'2010-08-04 11:53:28','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI git the following problem on testing:\nImport->Git->Projects from Git\nPush \"Clone\"\nNow the clone Job runs in background\nAfter the clone Job has finished, the new repo is not offered in the repository list.\nI think this should be fixed. Additionally the user should somehow see that the Import projects from Git dialog is waiting for the result of the clone operation.',1229,'AAALxn///4k='),(2,'2010-08-04 13:40:35','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\nAs Jens mentioned, we have an issue when going through the Git Import wizard. We have to see whether we should close the wizard and pop it back up after the clone is done. If we have a checkbox saying whether or not the clone should be done in the background, we can decide how to act. Not all clones will take forever and warrant the running in the background behavior.',1229,'AAALxn///4Q='),(44,'2010-09-09 10:46:20','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1229,'AAALy3///10='),(4,'2010-09-09 11:29:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1229,'AAALy3///1o='),(4,'2010-09-09 11:29:47','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1229,'AAALy3///1s='),(4,'2010-09-09 11:28:54','Uploaded patch set 4.',1229,'AAALy3///1w='),(74,'2010-09-08 13:27:23','Uploaded patch set 3.',1229,'AAALy3///5c='),(74,'2010-09-08 13:27:33','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\nThanks',1229,'AAALy3///5Y='),(44,'2010-09-07 14:49:42','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nNow import wizard uses getContainer.run to clone and clone action in repository view uses a Job. This seems to be the best solution.\n\nSmall bug in code (see inline comment).',1229,'AAALy3///8k='),(74,'2010-09-04 23:39:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',1229,'AAALyn///AI='),(2,'2010-08-05 18:56:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1230,'AAALx3///90='),(2,'2010-08-05 18:56:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1230,'AAALx3///94='),(6,'2010-08-04 11:39:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',1230,'AAALxn///44='),(6,'2010-08-04 13:55:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1230,'AAALxn///4A='),(6,'2010-08-04 11:41:25','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1230,'AAALxn///4s='),(6,'2010-08-04 08:56:12','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\nlooks good, there are some typos',1230,'AAALxn///5U='),(2,'2010-08-05 18:57:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1231,'AAALx3///9s='),(2,'2010-08-05 18:57:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1231,'AAALx3///9w='),(6,'2010-08-04 11:39:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',1231,'AAALxn///48='),(6,'2010-08-04 13:54:54','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1231,'AAALxn///4E='),(6,'2010-08-04 08:57:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1231,'AAALxn///5Q='),(NULL,'2010-08-04 17:59:11','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1232,'AAALxn///2k='),(1,'2010-08-04 17:59:10','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased onto 0.8.4.87-g395d236 so I can bring this bug fix into Gerrit Code Review without dragging in the much more risky delta encoding and API changes.',1232,'AAALxn///2o='),(1,'2010-08-04 17:58:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',1232,'AAALxn///2s='),(1,'2010-08-04 17:59:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1232,'AAALxn///2Y='),(2,'2010-08-04 14:55:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWorks well.',1233,'AAALxn///30='),(2,'2010-08-04 14:55:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',1233,'AAALxn///34='),(2,'2010-08-04 15:04:35','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSigh, finally!',1233,'AAALxn///3c='),(2,'2010-08-04 15:04:19','Uploaded patch set 4.',1233,'AAALxn///3g='),(NULL,'2010-08-04 14:58:14','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit 0f07e6d4a3b3b0a537f738714dc0fdcd39652aec which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1233,'AAALxn///3k='),(2,'2010-08-04 14:58:12','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood to go.',1233,'AAALxn///3o='),(2,'2010-08-04 14:57:59','Uploaded patch set 3.',1233,'AAALxn///3s='),(NULL,'2010-08-04 14:55:34','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit 0f07e6d4a3b3b0a537f738714dc0fdcd39652aec which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1233,'AAALxn///3w='),(2,'2010-08-04 15:04:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1233,'AAALxn///3Y='),(2,'2010-08-04 15:06:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1234,'AAALxn///3M='),(2,'2010-08-04 15:06:06','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNice.',1234,'AAALxn///3Q='),(2,'2010-08-04 15:05:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',1234,'AAALxn///3U='),(44,'2010-08-04 10:03:54','Patch Set 1:\n\nDepends on JGit http://egit.eclipse.org/r/1233',1234,'AAALxn///5E='),(74,'2010-08-05 12:54:01','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCould you rebase this? It conflicts with the Export-Package of http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1238 and doesn\'t compile as you deleted a package.\n\nAnd I wonder if we should add a checkbox to the \"Create branch\" dialog to checkout this branch immediatly. Creating a branch in the Git repo view means branch+checkout while in the History view, we only do a branch. Confused me a little bit when I used it the first time. What do you think?\n\nAnd I get a NPE when using Checkout on a commit in one of my sample project:\njava.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.actions.CheckoutCommitActionHandler.execute(CheckoutCommitActionHandler.java:140)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.actions.RepositoryAction.run(RepositoryAction.java:98)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.PluginAction.runWithEvent(PluginAction.java:251)',1235,'AAALx3////A='),(46,'2010-08-05 07:37:18','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1235,'AAALx3////k='),(46,'2010-08-05 07:36:51','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed the commented code. Thanks Benny for pointing me to the correct method.',1235,'AAALx3////o='),(46,'2010-08-05 07:36:50','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed the commented code. Thanks Benny for pointing me to the correct method.',1235,'AAALx3////s='),(46,'2010-08-05 07:35:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',1235,'AAALx3////w='),(46,'2010-08-05 13:11:03','Patch Set 4:\n\nRebased to current master. What exactly are you doing to get the nullpointer?\nWith the checkbox, I agree, but would rather do this in a separate change, what do you think?',1235,'AAALx3///+0='),(46,'2010-08-05 13:06:59','Uploaded patch set 4.',1235,'AAALx3///+4='),(46,'2010-08-05 13:03:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',1235,'AAALx3///+8='),(2,'2010-08-05 16:40:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1235,'AAALx3///+k='),(2,'2010-08-05 16:40:34','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, I didn\'t hit the NPE.',1235,'AAALx3///+o='),(2,'2010-08-05 16:39:58','Uploaded patch set 5.',1235,'AAALx3///+s='),(74,'2010-08-05 13:22:46','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nHm, can\'t seem to reproduce the NPE at will. Currently I\'m unable to find a scenario to reproduce it. Maybe there was something wrong with my test project. I think we should leave it as is (tested it with several scenarios) and if it happens again, I\'ll open a bug.\n\nAnother change for the checkbox: +1',1235,'AAALx3///+w='),(74,'2010-08-04 18:18:24','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\nSee inline comments',1235,'AAALxn///18='),(2,'2010-08-04 16:21:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1236,'AAALxn///24='),(2,'2010-08-04 16:21:29','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1236,'AAALxn///28='),(1,'2010-08-04 17:59:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1237,'AAALxn///2c='),(1,'2010-08-04 17:59:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1237,'AAALxn///2g='),(46,'2010-08-05 08:36:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1238,'AAALx3////c='),(46,'2010-08-05 08:36:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThat\'s a good start. We have some more issues here, though, for which I opened bug 321831.',1238,'AAALx3////g='),(6,'2010-08-05 12:14:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',1239,'AAALx3////E='),(6,'2010-08-05 12:14:15','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1239,'AAALx3////I='),(46,'2010-08-05 11:50:13','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nJavadoc missing.',1239,'AAALx3////Q='),(2,'2010-08-05 17:25:09','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1239,'AAALx3///+c='),(2,'2010-08-05 17:24:24','Uploaded patch set 3.',1239,'AAALx3///+g='),(2,'2010-08-05 17:25:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1239,'AAALx3///+Y='),(6,'2010-08-05 11:44:47','Patch Set 1:\n\nDepends on JGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1239',1240,'AAALx3////Y='),(2,'2010-08-05 17:26:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1240,'AAALx3///+Q='),(2,'2010-08-05 17:26:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1240,'AAALx3///+U='),(2,'2010-08-05 18:37:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks for the patch Benny.',1241,'AAALx3///+A='),(2,'2010-08-05 18:37:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1241,'AAALx3///98='),(46,'2010-08-10 09:49:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1242,'AAALyH///7k='),(46,'2010-08-10 09:49:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Benny.',1242,'AAALyH///7o='),(2,'2010-08-05 18:34:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1243,'AAALx3///+E='),(2,'2010-08-05 18:34:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1243,'AAALx3///+I='),(NULL,'2010-11-09 23:29:16','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1244,'AAAL0H///+A='),(4,'2010-11-09 23:29:16','Patch Set 4: IP review completed\n\nCQ 4628 has been approved\n\nthanks Robin',1244,'AAAL0H///+E='),(4,'2010-11-09 23:44:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1244,'AAAL0H///90='),(4,'2010-11-09 23:44:05','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased onto current master',1244,'AAAL0H///94='),(4,'2010-11-09 23:42:43','Uploaded patch set 5.',1244,'AAAL0H///98='),(79,'2010-08-05 17:44:08','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis is more a proof of concept to start a discussion rather than a final implementation. It should probably be configurable, for one.',1244,'AAALx3///+M='),(8,'2010-08-19 18:57:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nA agree having too many options at once may be a problem. We could hidet them as some do with an Advanced option than opens up only when asked for.\n\nI also dislike going into a dialog doing some work and then figure I have to cancel and go to another dialog, especially when I lose work, i.e. my so-far-written commit message and the staging done so far.',1244,'AAALyH///aA='),(74,'2010-08-17 22:42:59','Patch Set 1:\n\nRobin, we should not clutter the Commit dialog with too many things. As of now, we already have so many options in the commit dialog that commiting is more than a no-brainer. I think this should go to the preference page (same would be for print margin and font). But we may want to provide a link to the pref page in the dialog to quickly access the available options.',1244,'AAALyH///l4='),(8,'2010-08-17 22:26:23','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'d prefer a persistent setting in the commit dialog. Maybe one\nfor using a fixed-width font too?\n\nBtw. See the history viewer for how I handled the wrapping of the text while displaying it. I.e. I don\'t let the reflow happen anywhere, but use sime hints to preserve ascii graphics\nand things like that. (actually needs some improvements since the viewer displays tha patch too for which the wrapping makes less sence.',1244,'AAALyH///l8='),(79,'2010-08-17 22:01:42','Patch Set 1:\n\nShould the option be in the preferences or as another checkbox in the commit dialog?',1244,'AAALyH///mU='),(8,'2010-08-16 19:00:13','Patch Set 1:\n\nHaving an *option* to reflow the text automatically would be nice.',1244,'AAALyH///pI='),(8,'2010-08-19 18:57:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nA agree having too many options at once may be a problem. We could hidet them as some do with an Advanced option than opens up only when asked for.\n\nI also dislike going into a dialog doing some work and then figure I have to cancel and go to another dialog, especially when I lose work, i.e. my so-far-written commit message and the staging done so far.',1244,'AAALyH///Z8='),(4,'2010-11-04 20:36:01','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n- thanks Robin, works great now\n- handling commit message header in separate change is ok\n- rebased to current master\n- filed bug and CQ for IP review (change exceeds 250 lines)',1244,'AAALzn///8U='),(4,'2010-11-04 20:31:55','Uploaded patch set 4.',1244,'AAALzn///8Y='),(79,'2010-11-03 10:10:53','Patch Set 3:\n\nMatthias: I will prepare another change for indicating that there should be a blank line, but after this one is done. It would also be nice if the header line would be shown in bold.',1244,'AAALzn///9A='),(79,'2010-11-03 10:08:40','Patch Set 3:\n\nIn patch set 3, I changed the following:\n\n- Do wrapping while the user is typing instead of at the end. This way, we don\'t have to restrain the size of the text area (which was a hack). It basically works like in vim with textwidth set. The only problem is that there\'s no easy way to reflow the text (command gq in vim), maybe this should be added as a context menu entry for a selection?\n\n- The margin line is set to 70 characters to show where the wrapping will happen.\n\n- Renamed the preference page from \"Committing\" to \"Commit Dialog\".\n\n- Added more testcases for wrapping, fixing the mentioned bugs.',1244,'AAALzn///9E='),(79,'2010-11-03 09:59:40','Uploaded patch set 3.',1244,'AAALzn///9I='),(79,'2010-10-21 15:40:11','Patch Set 2:\n\nRobin: Regarding preservation of ASCII graphics: The hard-wrap option doesn\'t remove newlines which were entered by the user (as opposed to what the commit message viewer does). So the graphics are fine as long as they are less than 70 characters wide.',1244,'AAALzX///4k='),(79,'2010-10-21 15:35:53','Patch Set 2:\n\nI changed the following in patch set 2:\n\n- There is now a \"Hard-wrap commit message\" option in the preferences. (Maybe there are more options which belong into this preference page, or else we can move this setting to the general git preference page.)\n\n- In the commit dialog there\'s a link which opens the preference page to change the option. The preference page opens \"above\" the commit dialog and nothing is lost when one returns from the preference page (this is the same as \"Configure Commit Templates\" in the CVS commit dialog).\n\n- The commit message editor font is now configurable and defaults to the \"text font\", which is usually monospace. (General -> Appearance -> Colors and Fonts)',1244,'AAALzX///4o='),(79,'2010-10-21 15:25:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',1244,'AAALzX///4w='),(4,'2010-10-30 23:55:33','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nThe editor area for the commit message looks ugly since\n- it doesn\'t align with the file table. Either center it or align it with the file table.\n- What\'s the purpose of the vertical bar at the right end of the commit message pane ?\n\nWhitespace in front of lines in the middle of a paragraph is erased. Could this be preserved to allow indenting inside of paragraphs.\n\nWould be nice to get a warning if there is no blank line after the header, also when the header becomes too long.',1244,'AAALzX///kw='),(2,'2010-08-05 19:28:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1245,'AAALx3///9U='),(2,'2010-08-05 19:28:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple change.',1245,'AAALx3///9Y='),(1,'2010-08-07 00:37:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',1246,'AAALyH////c='),(4,'2010-08-13 13:04:27','Patch Set 2:\n\nLGTM, these classes have some more public methods without javadoc, maybe this could be fixed also',1246,'AAALyH///sc='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1246,'AAALyX///2I='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:00:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1246,'AAALyX///4c='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:13','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1246,'AAALyX///4I='),(1,'2010-08-21 00:45:35','Patch Set 2:\n\nThe missing javadoc you are talking about on public or protected methods is inherited from the defining interface or base class.  Our coding style doesn\'t call to repeat docs in the implementation or override of such methods.',1246,'AAALyX///5I='),(49,'2010-08-06 16:57:31','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nHandling context menu when we have both ChangeSet and workspace or java model displayed is much more complicated, therefore I decided that this will be included in another patch\n\nI\'ll inspect why we have so much conflicting changes in synchronize now.',1247,'AAALx3///64='),(6,'2010-08-06 15:34:50','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n- I do not see all commits which I expect to see, see inline comment to GitModelRepository.\n\n- Now all folders are marked as conflicting in (Java) workspace model.\n\n- The Context menu from synchronize view is gone',1247,'AAALx3///7U='),(49,'2010-08-07 15:15:02','Patch Set 3:\n\nFixed conflicting marker.',1247,'AAALyH////A='),(49,'2010-08-07 15:14:22','Uploaded patch set 3.',1247,'AAALyH////E='),(49,'2010-08-07 13:52:41','Patch Set 2:\n\nNow all expected commits should be shown in ChangeSet',1247,'AAALyH////I='),(49,'2010-08-07 13:50:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',1247,'AAALyH////M='),(2,'2010-08-08 18:49:44','Uploaded patch set 4.',1247,'AAALyH///+k='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:22:41','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCQ 4400 was approved!\n\nThanks everyone for making this feature happen.',1247,'AAALyH///1c='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:22:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1247,'AAALyH///1Y='),(6,'2010-08-11 08:25:36','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nThanks, Dariusz!',1247,'AAALyH///3E='),(49,'2010-08-10 19:31:24','Uploaded patch set 7.',1247,'AAALyH///4A='),(2,'2010-08-10 17:12:46','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI updated the CQ with these latest patches.\n\nI\'m waiting for IP team clearance, should be within a few days.',1247,'AAALyH///4c='),(49,'2010-08-10 17:08:15','Patch Set 5: (9 inline comments)\n\nAll tests are green. I\'ve also add all suggested improvements from comments.',1247,'AAALyH///4g='),(49,'2010-08-10 17:06:47','Uploaded patch set 6.',1247,'AAALyH///4k='),(6,'2010-08-10 12:49:55','Patch Set 5:\n\nThere is a reproducibly failing test:\n\norg.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantComparatorTest\nshouldReturnTrueWhenComparingContainerAndContainer(org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantComparatorTest)\njunit.framework.AssertionFailedError: null\n	at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:27)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantComparatorTest.shouldReturnTrueWhenComparingContainerAndContainer(GitResourceVariantComparatorTest.java:187)',1247,'AAALyH///6c='),(6,'2010-08-10 13:49:14','Patch Set 5:\n\nYes, but I have found that with change 1269 I get errors:\n\n- I get suddenly a lot of conflicting changes\n- The remote file content of the diff view started from the workspace model contains stuff like \"40000 projb\" and some unreadable characters\n\nPlease check this',1247,'AAALyH///6E='),(6,'2010-08-10 12:37:53','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(9 inline comments)\n\nPlease habe a look at the inline comments.\n\nThe labels of the left and right compare editor inputs after double clicking a member of a change set are missing. They would be very useful. It took me quite a time to find out how to get them in, so I\'ll just push this change to gerrit.',1247,'AAALyH///6g='),(49,'2010-08-10 13:27:34','Patch Set 5:\n\nOK, I\'ll move this change and re-push both patches.',1247,'AAALyH///6Q='),(6,'2010-08-10 13:25:47','Patch Set 5:\n\nYes, I think we should not check-in a commit which causes test cases to fail. It may take a long time until the commit fixing the failing test comes in.',1247,'AAALyH///6U='),(49,'2010-08-10 12:56:50','Patch Set 5:\n\nGitResourceVariantComparatorTest.shouldReturnTrueWhenComparingContainerAndContainer should be fixed by change 1269.\n\nI can merge this fix here if that would preferable.',1247,'AAALyH///6Y='),(49,'2010-08-09 15:32:08','Uploaded patch set 5.',1247,'AAALyH///8M='),(49,'2010-08-09 15:31:50','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n> When I have a folder containing just two locally added files the change is marked as incoming.\n\nThis is rather bug in GitResourceVariantComparator then an issue in change set implementation.',1247,'AAALyH///8Q='),(6,'2010-08-09 13:26:32','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nWhen I have a folder containing just two locally added files the change is marked as incoming.\n\nYou should simplify the code calulating the commits, see inline comments.',1247,'AAALyH///8w='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:13:14','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nGerrit already merged these commits.',1248,'AAALx3///78='),(NULL,'2010-08-06 01:11:49','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1248,'AAALx3///8A='),(NULL,'2010-08-06 01:11:33','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1248,'AAALx3///8E='),(1,'2010-08-06 01:11:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1248,'AAALx3///8I='),(2,'2010-08-07 22:27:09','Patch Set 1:\n\nLooks good.',1249,'AAALyH///+0='),(2,'2010-08-07 22:27:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1249,'AAALyH///+4='),(2,'2010-08-07 22:27:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1249,'AAALyH///+w='),(46,'2010-08-19 13:07:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',1250,'AAALyH///dc='),(63,'2010-08-20 00:16:40','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(12 inline comments)\n\nI didn\'t inline this comment in the code but would like the buttons in ConfigurationEditorComponent to have some layout data set on them because their widths are all over the place right now.\n\nI was also wondering if the editor could be changed to only commit the changes after the user has actually clicked \'OK\' in the dialog? My test changes actually got delivered to my .gitconfig and now I have lost some configuration settings that I have forgotten about as I was removing stuff randomly (and it\'s been a few months since I last touched Git).',1250,'AAALyH///XU='),(46,'2010-08-20 10:04:12','Patch Set 3:\n\nThanks Remy, superb review.\nAll inline comments done.\n\nI\'m afraid I don\'t quite understand your remark regarding the layout of the buttons, though. What\'s the symptom?\n\nYour other remark regarding applying the chagnes only upon \"OK\" is absolutely valid. Actually, I would rather remove the OK button and use \"Apply\" and \"Cancel\" instead (ideally with \"Apply\" being enabled only when the config is dirty). I already have a TODO in the class javadoc of ConfigurationEditorComponent for this. I suggset to open a new bug/feature request for this. I can create the bug, just let me know if that\'s ok with you.',1250,'AAALyX///+A='),(46,'2010-08-20 09:56:45','Uploaded patch set 3.',1250,'AAALyX///+M='),(2,'2010-08-20 16:49:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1250,'AAALyX///7o='),(2,'2010-08-20 16:49:19','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine, we\'ll iterate over time.',1250,'AAALyX///7s='),(46,'2010-08-20 14:58:41','Patch Set 4:\n\nAbsolutely. So do you think this is good enough now?',1250,'AAALyX///8c='),(63,'2010-08-20 15:55:35','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nYes, I think this is better now. We can improve on it as necessary with separate commits.',1250,'AAALyX///8E='),(46,'2010-08-20 10:04:25','Patch Set 2: (12 inline comments)\n\n',1250,'AAALyX///98='),(63,'2010-08-20 12:13:32','Patch Set 4:\n\n\"Ugly\" might be a bit much but if you click around other preference pages in Eclipse, you will see that they all have the same general width.\n\nIn fact, some of them are even wider than they need to be given the light amount of text they are displaying (like the \'OK\' and \'Cancel\' buttons).\n\nConsistency is important in my opinion.',1250,'AAALyX///9M='),(46,'2010-08-20 12:05:35','Patch Set 4:\n\nOk, here we go. I wasn\'t aware that different widths of the buttons would be considered ugly, but here we go.\nI opened bug 323239 for the proper \"Save\" implementation.',1250,'AAALyX///9Q='),(46,'2010-08-20 12:00:40','Uploaded patch set 4.',1250,'AAALyX///9U='),(63,'2010-08-20 10:21:52','Patch Set 3:\n\nIf you look at the widths of the \'Change\', \'Delete\', and \'Add\' buttons. They are all different. It would look better if they were identical.\n\nAnd yes, feel free to use a new bug/change to make the editor only commit changes when explicitly asked to.',1250,'AAALyX///9Y='),(44,'2010-08-09 12:29:52','Patch Set 2:\n\nGood point. Moved logic in IgnoreActionHandler to the new class IgnoreOperation.',1251,'AAALyH///84='),(44,'2010-08-09 12:26:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',1251,'AAALyH///88='),(2,'2010-08-09 15:11:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1251,'AAALyH///8k='),(2,'2010-08-09 15:11:37','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Jens!',1251,'AAALyH///8o='),(2,'2010-08-09 15:11:06','Uploaded patch set 3.',1251,'AAALyH///8s='),(2,'2010-08-09 00:00:03','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nIt would also be easier to test if refactored into a new clean operation :)',1251,'AAALyH///9A='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:51:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nCan we refactor out this add to .gitignore logic into an operation that would be available in org.eclipse.egit.core? Right now I\'m not too comfortable with the coupling of the actual operation and action.',1251,'AAALyH///9Y='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:49:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1252,'AAALyH///9c='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:49:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.\n\nWe will need to update our documentation soon.',1252,'AAALyH///9g='),(2,'2010-08-08 19:00:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1253,'AAALyH///+I='),(2,'2010-08-08 19:00:23','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood catch.',1253,'AAALyH///+M='),(2,'2010-08-08 19:00:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',1253,'AAALyH///+Q='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:56:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1254,'AAALyH///9E='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:56:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. Thanks Mathias!',1254,'AAALyH///9I='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:56:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',1254,'AAALyH///9M='),(NULL,'2010-08-08 23:54:03','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1254,'AAALyH///9Q='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:54:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1254,'AAALyH///9U='),(46,'2010-08-07 19:09:53','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nShouldn\'t have been uploaded.',1255,'AAALyH///+8='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:47:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1256,'AAALyH///9k='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:47:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is fine. We should probably have a constant somewhere for this... calling System.getProperties everywhere seems a bit much. I believe we have something available in the Eclipse platform but I can\'t remember atm.',1256,'AAALyH///9o='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:47:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',1256,'AAALyH///9s='),(44,'2010-08-06 14:30:18','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nsent change again without change id => delete first change.',1257,'AAALx3///7k='),(NULL,'2010-08-08 23:35:26','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I2dad9faa, however the current patch set is 2.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1258,'AAALyH///+A='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:35:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1258,'AAALyH///+E='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:39:34','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1258,'AAALyH///90='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:39:22','Uploaded patch set 2.',1258,'AAALyH///94='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:39:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1258,'AAALyH///9w='),(46,'2010-08-06 15:02:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1259,'AAALx3///7c='),(46,'2010-08-06 15:02:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRetest ok',1259,'AAALx3///7g='),(1,'2010-08-06 16:50:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1260,'AAALx3///7A='),(NULL,'2010-08-06 16:48:03','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1260,'AAALx3///7M='),(1,'2010-08-06 16:48:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1260,'AAALx3///7Q='),(1,'2010-08-06 16:50:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1261,'AAALx3///7E='),(1,'2010-08-06 16:50:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1261,'AAALx3///7I='),(2,'2010-08-11 15:17:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1262,'AAALyH///10='),(2,'2010-08-11 15:17:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWorks for me.',1262,'AAALyH///14='),(2,'2010-08-11 15:16:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1263,'AAALyH///18='),(2,'2010-08-11 15:16:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks reasonable.',1263,'AAALyH///2A='),(8,'2010-08-10 23:18:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',1263,'AAALyH///3w='),(46,'2010-08-27 11:49:05','Patch Set 2:\n\nThis causes bug 323390. The projects with the modified .project files can no longer be imported into a 3.5 IDE. I suggest to revert this change.',1263,'AAALyn///nw='),(2,'2010-08-08 18:56:36','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Robin, looks good.',1264,'AAALyH///+c='),(2,'2010-08-08 18:56:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',1264,'AAALyH///+g='),(2,'2010-08-08 18:56:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1264,'AAALyH///+Y='),(2,'2010-08-08 18:58:40','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nOoops!',1265,'AAALyH///+U='),(2,'2010-08-08 23:37:56','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nblah',1266,'AAALyH///98='),(2,'2010-08-09 15:13:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1267,'AAALyH///8c='),(2,'2010-08-09 15:13:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Jens.',1267,'AAALyH///8g='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:26:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1268,'AAALyH///1M='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:26:30','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. Thanks Dariusz!',1268,'AAALyH///1Q='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:26:13','Uploaded patch set 4.',1268,'AAALyH///1U='),(6,'2010-08-11 09:29:20','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1268,'AAALyH///24='),(49,'2010-08-10 19:31:23','Uploaded patch set 3.',1268,'AAALyH///4E='),(49,'2010-08-10 19:29:19','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1268,'AAALyH///4I='),(6,'2010-08-10 13:29:52','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1268,'AAALyH///6I='),(49,'2010-08-09 17:30:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1268,'AAALyH///8I='),(49,'2010-08-11 23:02:08','Patch Set 5:\n\nStefan, could you please test this one? I\'ve fix an issue with \'null\' folders maybe it also fixes \'conflicting folders\'',1269,'AAALyH///0A='),(49,'2010-08-11 22:59:58','Uploaded patch set 5.',1269,'AAALyH///0E='),(49,'2010-08-11 21:20:10','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\nStefan, could you somehow share with me this project? Currently I\'m testing this on current egit clone, and comparing main with v0.8.4 I didn\'t get any conflicts.',1269,'AAALyH///0g='),(6,'2010-08-11 12:30:42','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI still face the issue with the conflicting folders. I misused bug 318473 to upload two screenshots.',1269,'AAALyH///2w='),(49,'2010-08-10 22:19:36','Uploaded patch set 4.',1269,'AAALyH///34='),(49,'2010-08-10 20:18:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',1269,'AAALyH///38='),(49,'2010-08-10 19:09:14','Patch Set 2:\n\nStefan Lay: \"The remote file content of the diff view started from the workspace model contains stuff like \"40000 projb\" and some unreadable characters\"\n\nCould you be more specific? When I launch compare editor everything seams to be OK.',1269,'AAALyH///4Q='),(49,'2010-08-10 19:06:31','Patch Set 2:\n\nStefan Lay:\n\"I get suddenly a lot of conflicting changes\"\n\nThis is because two different instances of same ObjectId (both have same SHA1) are different according to equals method. I\'ll implement this comparison on \"string level\", comparing SHA1 strings of both objects.',1269,'AAALyH///4U='),(49,'2010-08-09 20:58:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1269,'AAALyH///8E='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:46:13','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis works for me after some testing.\n\nIf we still hit a reproducible issue, open a bug and we\'ll fix it.',1269,'AAALyH///y0='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:45:30','Uploaded patch set 6.',1269,'AAALyH///y4='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:46:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1269,'AAALyH///yw='),(49,'2010-08-10 22:21:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1270,'AAALyH///30='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:48:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1270,'AAALyH///yc='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:48:10','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s try this again after rebasing.\n\n+1',1270,'AAALyH///yg='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:47:57','Uploaded patch set 4.',1270,'AAALyH///yk='),(NULL,'2010-08-12 00:47:06','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 5 of I6c221ee7, however the current patch set is 6.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1270,'AAALyH///yo='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:47:05','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWorked for me in testing.\n\nThanks Dariusz.',1270,'AAALyH///ys='),(49,'2010-08-11 23:56:55','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebased',1270,'AAALyH///zE='),(49,'2010-08-11 23:56:28','Uploaded patch set 3.',1270,'AAALyH///zI='),(2,'2010-08-10 16:50:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good from testing.',1271,'AAALyH///40='),(2,'2010-08-10 16:49:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',1271,'AAALyH///44='),(2,'2010-08-10 16:50:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1271,'AAALyH///4w='),(46,'2010-08-10 10:57:50','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1272,'AAALyH///60='),(44,'2010-08-10 10:47:29','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1272,'AAALyH///64='),(46,'2010-08-10 10:57:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1272,'AAALyH///6w='),(44,'2010-08-10 10:46:06','Uploaded patch set 2.',1272,'AAALyH///7M='),(46,'2010-08-10 10:19:19','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nSee comments.',1272,'AAALyH///7Q='),(2,'2010-08-10 14:28:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1273,'AAALyH///50='),(2,'2010-08-10 14:28:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1273,'AAALyH///5w='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:30:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1274,'AAALyH///1A='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:30:07','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nPlease file a bug for the \"no commit\" label issue and we will look at fixing it.',1274,'AAALyH///1E='),(49,'2010-08-11 17:46:56','Patch Set 2:\n\nNow it look fine!\n\nIt would be perfect if you can improve somehow label when there is no object in commit. Currently label shows something like this:\n\"CommitOperationTest.java not in commit 16cbcd...277f4(and rest of commit SHA1) 1281096460 ---- sp\".',1274,'AAALyH///1g='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:29:14','Uploaded patch set 3.',1274,'AAALyH///1I='),(6,'2010-08-11 13:38:00','Patch Set 2:\n\nrebased and fixed the CCE',1274,'AAALyH///2g='),(6,'2010-08-11 13:34:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1274,'AAALyH///2k='),(49,'2010-08-10 17:20:12','Patch Set 1:\n\nI get an ClassCastException when I try to lunch compare editor for file that does not have base or remote variant (was added or deleted)\n\njava.lang.ClassCastException: org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.GitCompareFileRevisionEditorInput$EmptyTypedElement cannot be cast to org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.FileRevisionTypedElement\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.synchronize.model.GitModelBlob.prepareInput(GitModelBlob.java:150)\nat org.eclipse.team.internal.ui.mapping.ModelCompareEditorInput.prepareCompareInput(ModelCompareEditorInput.java:121)\nat org.eclipse.team.ui.synchronize.SaveableCompareEditorInput.prepareInput(SaveableCompareEditorInput.java:235)\nat org.eclipse.compare.CompareEditorInput.run(CompareEditorInput.java:483)\nat org.eclipse.compare.internal.CompareUIPlugin.prepareInput(CompareUIPlugin.java:548)\nat org.eclipse.compare.internal.CompareEditor$2.run(CompareEditor.java:349)\nat org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run(Worker.java:54)',1274,'AAALyH///4Y='),(2,'2010-08-10 14:26:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1275,'AAALyH///54='),(2,'2010-08-10 14:26:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',1275,'AAALyH///58='),(2,'2010-08-10 15:45:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems reasonable.\n\nInteresting that we chose seconds in JGit versus the typical milliseconds.',1276,'AAALyH///5c='),(2,'2010-08-10 15:45:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1276,'AAALyH///5Y='),(2,'2010-08-10 14:56:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1277,'AAALyH///5o='),(2,'2010-08-10 14:56:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, simple change.\n\nThanks!',1277,'AAALyH///5s='),(2,'2010-08-10 15:42:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1278,'AAALyH///5g='),(2,'2010-08-10 15:42:29','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNot the cleanest solution but it works. In the future, we should consider cleaning up some of that repository based on project selection code...',1278,'AAALyH///5k='),(44,'2010-09-07 15:57:52','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nLooks good.\n\nSome small issues remaining:\n\n1. 2 inline comments\n2. typo in preferences page: ... when index change [changes]\n\nCan you fix the small issues and rebase the change?\nThen we can merge it in.',1279,'AAALy3///8I='),(4,'2010-09-17 14:40:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1279,'AAALy3///mc='),(4,'2010-09-17 14:40:57','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed typo in preference page',1279,'AAALy3///mg='),(4,'2010-09-17 14:39:41','Uploaded patch set 9.',1279,'AAALy3///mk='),(4,'2010-09-17 14:30:40','Uploaded patch set 8.',1279,'AAALy3///mo='),(44,'2010-09-15 12:09:40','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1279,'AAALy3///rU='),(8,'2010-09-13 23:00:56','Uploaded patch set 7.',1279,'AAALy3///s8='),(8,'2010-09-13 22:52:58','Patch Set 6: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1279,'AAALy3///tA='),(44,'2010-09-10 16:34:40','Patch Set 6: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1279,'AAALy3///x4='),(44,'2010-08-11 09:24:03','Patch Set 3:\n\nI detected another problem: \nResourceRefreshJob.onIndexChanged also reacts on changes that were triggered inside Eclipse, e.g. on committing.\nThis produces unneccesary refreshes. Only changes detected while scanForRepoChanges() is running should be taken into account.\n\nThread [Worker-1] (Suspended (breakpoint at line 311 in org.eclipse.egit.ui.Activator$ResourceRefreshJob))	\n	org.eclipse.egit.ui.Activator$ResourceRefreshJob.onIndexChanged(org.eclipse.jgit.events.IndexChangedEvent) line: 311	\n	org.eclipse.jgit.events.IndexChangedEvent.dispatch(org.eclipse.jgit.events.IndexChangedListener) line: 55	\n	org.eclipse.jgit.events.IndexChangedEvent.dispatch(org.eclipse.jgit.events.RepositoryListener) line: 1	\n	org.eclipse.jgit.events.ListenerList.dispatch(org.eclipse.jgit.events.RepositoryEvent) line: 120	\n	org.eclipse.jgit.storage.file.FileRepository(org.eclipse.jgit.lib.Repository).fireEvent(org.eclipse.jgit.events.RepositoryEvent<?>) line: 145	\n	org.eclipse.jgit.lib.GitIndex.write() line: 333	\n	org.eclipse.egit.core.op.CommitOperation.doCommits(java.lang.String, java.util.HashMap<org.eclipse.jgit.lib.Repository,org.eclipse.jgit.lib.Tree>) line: 292	\n	org.eclipse.egit.core.op.CommitOperation.access$8(org.eclipse.egit.core.op.CommitOperation, java.lang.String, java.util.HashMap) line: 279	\n	org.eclipse.egit.core.op.CommitOperation$1.run(org.eclipse.core.runtime.IProgressMonitor) line: 176	\n	org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.Workspace.run(org.eclipse.core.resources.IWorkspaceRunnable, org.eclipse.core.runtime.jobs.ISchedulingRule, int, org.eclipse.core.runtime.IProgressMonitor) line: 1975	\n	org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.Workspace.run(org.eclipse.core.resources.IWorkspaceRunnable, org.eclipse.core.runtime.IProgressMonitor) line: 1957	\n	org.eclipse.egit.core.op.CommitOperation.execute(org.eclipse.core.runtime.IProgressMonitor) line: 190	\n	org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.actions.CommitActionHandler$1.run(org.eclipse.core.runtime.IProgressMonitor) line: 186	\n	org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run() line: 54',1279,'AAALyH///28=');
INSERT INTO `change_messages` VALUES (44,'2010-08-11 09:13:12','Patch Set 3:\n\nRCS working only if the IDE Windows is active: this is very useful.\n\nOn testing, I got some strange effects:\n\n1. Create a new file x in the IDE and add it to Git.\nIf you change x outside Eclipse, the repo scan triggers an indexChanged event and x is refreshed\n\n2. Change a file y that is in repo outside the IDE.\nThe repo scan does not get this change, no refresh is performed.\n\nI think all external changes to resources should be refreshed or no change.\n\nGitLighweightDecorator listens to repo changes. So when refresh stuff is turned of, still changes like staged, branch change etc are shown to the user. Just the dirty information is missing and external changes are not refreshed. Reacting to external changes is provided by setting \"refresh automatically\", so this should be used for any kind of external change (you mentioned \"refresh automatically\" has a too long delay until it works).\n\nSummary: I have some doubts if it is the right way to refresh resources based on Git Repo eventing because not all external content changes in the working tree are detected.\nFurthermore this EGit refresh mechanism somehow does the Job of a standard mechanism (\"refresh automatically\").',1279,'AAALyH///3A='),(8,'2010-08-10 23:25:40','Uploaded patch set 3.',1279,'AAALyH///3g='),(8,'2010-08-10 23:21:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',1279,'AAALyH///3o='),(8,'2010-08-15 15:19:11','Patch Set 4: IP review completed\n\nNeeds I66dec8cd1e7d157f1914648b4cff01bf49423935',1279,'AAALyH///rI='),(8,'2010-08-15 15:15:47','Uploaded patch set 4.',1279,'AAALyH///rM='),(8,'2010-08-12 06:06:18','Patch Set 3:\n\nScanning the full workspace is heavy for big repos.If you want full refresh for any resource change use the workspace refresh. This refresh can works even without hitting the physical disk since it reads so little that the disk cache is likely to be used, which is good for the battery on my laptop.\n\nI\'ve seen no problem with the decorators, but you and others have reported such pronblems and I think this patch does not change this.',1279,'AAALyH///yM='),(8,'2010-08-12 06:06:17','Patch Set 3:\n\nScanning the full workspace is heavy for big repos.If you want full refresh for any resource change use the workspace refresh. This refresh can works even without hitting the physical disk since it reads so little that the disk cache is likely to be used, which is good for the battery on my laptop.\n\nI\'ve seen no problem with the decorators, but you and others have reported such pronblems and I think this patch does not change this.',1279,'AAALyH///yQ='),(8,'2010-08-29 13:11:14','Uploaded patch set 6.',1279,'AAALyn///i4='),(63,'2010-08-28 12:44:40','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\nPlease also update the corresponding copyright headers of any files you have touched. I noticed Activator was updated but it seems not all of them were.',1279,'AAALyn///kI='),(8,'2010-08-25 23:14:56','Patch Set 5: IP review completed\n\n',1279,'AAALyn///wI='),(8,'2010-08-25 23:14:48','Patch Set 5:\n\nRemoved deps to deferred JGit patches',1279,'AAALyn///wM='),(8,'2010-08-25 23:13:09','Uploaded patch set 5.',1279,'AAALyn///wU='),(8,'2010-08-10 23:25:40','Uploaded patch set 3.',1280,'AAALyH///3c='),(8,'2010-08-10 23:21:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',1280,'AAALyH///3k='),(46,'2010-08-11 06:27:14','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nThanks Robin.',1280,'AAALyH///3M='),(46,'2010-08-17 07:24:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1280,'AAALyH///ns='),(46,'2010-08-17 07:24:58','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Robin.',1280,'AAALyH///nw='),(8,'2010-08-15 16:39:30','Patch Set 5:\n\nOpened https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=322722.\n\nThere probably is a correct way of doing this rather than patching around the immediate flaws.',1280,'AAALyH///rA='),(8,'2010-08-14 12:53:19','Uploaded patch set 5.',1280,'AAALyH///rU='),(8,'2010-08-14 12:52:31','Uploaded patch set 4.',1280,'AAALyH///rY='),(1,'2010-08-11 22:54:28','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',1281,'AAALyH///0M='),(1,'2010-08-19 17:46:56','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1281,'AAALyH///a8='),(1,'2010-08-19 18:37:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1281,'AAALyH///aI='),(1,'2010-08-19 18:37:39','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCherry-picked to remove the unnecessary listener handle in FileRepository.',1281,'AAALyH///aM='),(1,'2010-08-19 18:37:06','Uploaded patch set 6.',1281,'AAALyH///aQ='),(46,'2010-08-19 07:13:44','Patch Set 4: (5 inline comments)\n\n',1281,'AAALyH///eI='),(46,'2010-08-19 07:13:17','Uploaded patch set 5.',1281,'AAALyH///eM='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:15:05','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',1281,'AAALyH///jc='),(46,'2010-08-17 10:33:02','Uploaded patch set 3.',1281,'AAALyH///nc='),(46,'2010-08-17 11:59:22','Uploaded patch set 4.',1281,'AAALyH///nE='),(4,'2010-08-17 11:53:22','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1281,'AAALyH///nI='),(46,'2010-08-17 08:31:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',1281,'AAALyH///no='),(46,'2010-08-19 13:56:14','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nHold until change 1281 is in.',1282,'AAALyH///cw='),(46,'2010-08-20 07:49:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1282,'AAALyX////I='),(4,'2010-08-21 22:34:31','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1282,'AAALyX///0A='),(4,'2010-08-21 22:33:20','Uploaded patch set 3.',1282,'AAALyX///0E='),(4,'2010-08-21 22:34:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1282,'AAALyX///z8='),(46,'2010-08-11 14:27:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',1283,'AAALyH///2c='),(2,'2010-08-11 14:50:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1283,'AAALyH///2M='),(2,'2010-08-11 14:50:14','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Mathias.',1283,'AAALyH///2Q='),(46,'2010-08-11 14:35:25','Uploaded patch set 4.',1283,'AAALyH///2U='),(46,'2010-08-11 14:34:24','Uploaded patch set 3.',1283,'AAALyH///2Y='),(2,'2010-08-11 15:27:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1284,'AAALyH///1s='),(2,'2010-08-11 15:27:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis works.',1284,'AAALyH///1w='),(46,'2010-08-11 15:15:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',1284,'AAALyH///2E='),(2,'2010-08-11 15:11:48','Patch Set 1:\n\nCan you rebase and fix merge conflicts?',1284,'AAALyH///2I='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:40:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1285,'AAALyH///0o='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:40:46','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Jens.',1285,'AAALyH///0s='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:40:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1285,'AAALyH///0w='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:32:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1286,'AAALyH///00='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:32:04','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.\n\nFixed some spelling mistakes in the commit message.\n\nThanks Mathias!',1286,'AAALyH///04='),(2,'2010-08-11 20:31:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1286,'AAALyH///08='),(46,'2010-08-11 17:15:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1287,'AAALyH///1k='),(46,'2010-08-11 17:15:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks.',1287,'AAALyH///1o='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:44:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1288,'AAALyH///y8='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:44:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1288,'AAALyH///zA='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:57:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1289,'AAALyH///yU='),(2,'2010-08-12 00:57:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple fix and we need a new build...',1289,'AAALyH///yY='),(44,'2010-08-12 16:27:03','Patch Set 1: (6 inline comments)\n\n',1290,'AAALyH///v4='),(2,'2010-08-12 16:43:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1290,'AAALyH///vc='),(2,'2010-08-12 16:43:51','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good Jens.\n\nThanks!',1290,'AAALyH///vg='),(2,'2010-08-12 16:43:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',1290,'AAALyH///vk='),(44,'2010-08-12 16:36:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',1290,'AAALyH///vw='),(2,'2010-08-12 14:43:29','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks good, but would prefer IgnoreFilter refactored out.',1290,'AAALyH///x8='),(1,'2010-08-12 15:10:32','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',1290,'AAALyH///xk='),(2,'2010-08-12 16:06:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1291,'AAALyH///wo='),(2,'2010-08-12 16:06:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',1291,'AAALyH///ws='),(49,'2010-08-12 16:07:42','Patch Set 1:\n\nNo problem ;)',1292,'AAALyH///wc='),(2,'2010-08-12 16:06:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1292,'AAALyH///wg='),(2,'2010-08-12 16:06:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks for the fix!',1292,'AAALyH///wk='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:26:49','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',1293,'AAALyH///jA='),(2,'2010-08-18 17:09:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1293,'AAALyH///kM='),(1,'2010-08-12 17:26:16','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(11 inline comments)\n\n',1293,'AAALyH///ts='),(74,'2010-08-12 17:13:37','Patch Set 1:\n\nChris, how about some tests? ;)',1293,'AAALyH///us='),(2,'2010-08-12 16:28:00','Patch Set 1:\n\nStill need tests.\n\nWe currently don\'t support any of the signing crap that is part of tagging... not sure how to do this yet...',1293,'AAALyH///v0='),(2,'2010-08-12 16:39:59','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'m fine with throwing an unsupportedoperation exception at the moment.\n\nWhat\'s required as part of a tag?\n\nmessage? author? tagger?',1293,'AAALyH///vo='),(1,'2010-08-12 16:37:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nWe can\'t sign tags in JGit because the only PGP implementation available in Java is BouncyCastle, which is forbidden for use by Eclipse projects.\n\nWe\'ll have to fork out to sign tags, which means we\'ll have to be dependent upon a user-supplied external program that is most likely going to need to be the GPL\'d GnuPG program.  Yay.',1293,'AAALyH///vs='),(1,'2010-08-25 02:38:12','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(14 inline comments)\n\n',1293,'AAALyn///0s='),(2,'2010-08-24 03:22:02','Uploaded patch set 7.',1293,'AAALyn///5E='),(2,'2010-08-23 15:45:29','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI addressed all of Matthias\' concerns. The only concern I didn\'t address with the ability to fail fast on setSigned(...)\n\nI think it would be better to leave the switch processing in processOptions... so it\'s all in one place at least.',1293,'AAALyn///8k='),(2,'2010-08-23 15:44:21','Uploaded patch set 6.',1293,'AAALyn///8o='),(4,'2010-08-27 19:19:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1293,'AAALyn///mE='),(4,'2010-08-27 19:19:07','Patch Set 11: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1293,'AAALyn///mI='),(4,'2010-08-27 19:15:07','Uploaded patch set 11.',1293,'AAALyn///mM='),(2,'2010-08-26 21:14:24','Uploaded patch set 10.',1293,'AAALyn///pc='),(2,'2010-08-26 21:14:06','Uploaded patch set 9.',1293,'AAALyn///pg='),(NULL,'2010-08-26 21:24:49','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1293,'AAALyn///pQ='),(1,'2010-08-26 21:24:49','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1293,'AAALyn///pY='),(2,'2010-08-26 18:25:06','Uploaded patch set 8.',1293,'AAALyn///qk='),(1,'2010-08-26 18:46:56','Patch Set 8: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1293,'AAALyn///qQ='),(4,'2010-08-21 21:46:18','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\n',1293,'AAALyX///0I='),(15,'2010-08-21 20:27:53','Patch Set 5: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1293,'AAALyX///0o='),(2,'2010-08-20 22:48:50','Uploaded patch set 3.',1293,'AAALyX///6g='),(2,'2010-08-20 22:56:11','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI\'m happy with this now.',1293,'AAALyX///6I='),(2,'2010-08-20 22:55:50','Uploaded patch set 5.',1293,'AAALyX///6M='),(2,'2010-08-20 22:55:22','Uploaded patch set 4.',1293,'AAALyX///6Q='),(49,'2010-08-12 17:36:22','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\nPlease see:\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/1295',1294,'AAALyH///tg='),(49,'2010-08-12 17:17:27','Patch Set 2:\n\nCould I amend this patch, or push a new one that will respect Benjamin\'s comments?',1294,'AAALyH///uc='),(2,'2010-08-12 17:18:09','Patch Set 2:\n\nNew patch to push please ;)',1294,'AAALyH///uU='),(74,'2010-08-12 17:11:56','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1294,'AAALyH///uw='),(2,'2010-08-12 17:02:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1294,'AAALyH///vE='),(2,'2010-08-12 17:02:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1294,'AAALyH///vI='),(49,'2010-08-12 16:59:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1294,'AAALyH///vM='),(49,'2010-08-12 16:52:59','Patch Set 1:\n\nOK, that wouldn\'t be a problem. I\'ll push new patch in a minute.',1294,'AAALyH///vQ='),(2,'2010-08-12 16:51:32','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI would prefer GitModelSynchronize to be a static class... with a static accessor method to run the participant... it has no state...',1294,'AAALyH///vU='),(2,'2010-08-12 17:49:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',1295,'AAALyH///tc='),(2,'2010-08-12 17:49:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1295,'AAALyH///tY='),(2,'2010-08-12 18:49:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1296,'AAALyH///tM='),(2,'2010-08-12 18:49:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1296,'AAALyH///tQ='),(2,'2010-08-13 00:22:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Dariusz.',1297,'AAALyH///s0='),(2,'2010-08-13 00:22:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1297,'AAALyH///sw='),(2,'2010-08-13 00:24:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1298,'AAALyH///so='),(2,'2010-08-13 00:24:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Dariusz.',1298,'AAALyH///ss='),(4,'2010-08-12 23:55:37','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis doesn\'t yet work, it\'s a miracle to me why PlotWalk.getTags returns null for commits having refs, I can see in the debugger that ReverseRefMap contains entries (HEAD, refs/heads/master, refs/remotes/origin/master) for the id master points at but nevertheless reverseRefMap.get(commitId) returns null when passing in this same id.\n:-(\n\nProbably I am a bit too tired to spot the problem now ...',1299,'AAALyH///s4='),(1,'2010-08-12 23:48:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1299,'AAALyH///s8='),(1,'2010-08-12 23:48:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1299,'AAALyH///tA='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:12:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1300,'AAALyH///qo='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:12:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1300,'AAALyH///qs='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:14:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1301,'AAALyH///qg='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:14:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis works albeit the code is hard to understand.\n\nMay consider adding some comments or cleaning the code up a bit in the future.',1301,'AAALyH///qk='),(2,'2010-08-16 16:36:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple change, looks good to me.',1302,'AAALyH///p0='),(2,'2010-08-16 16:34:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1302,'AAALyH///p4='),(2,'2010-08-16 16:36:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1302,'AAALyH///pw='),(4,'2010-08-13 15:40:03','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nyou added some junk files which seem to be totally unrelated for this change:\n- 0001-first-version.patch\n- org.eclipse.egit.core.test/Localorg.eclipse.egit.core--All-Tests.launch\n- org.eclipse.egit.ui.test/org.eclipse.egit.ui--All tests A).launch\n- temp.java',1302,'AAALyH///rk='),(2,'2010-08-17 00:06:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1303,'AAALyH///n4='),(2,'2010-08-17 00:06:40','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1303,'AAALyH///n8='),(4,'2010-08-16 22:29:17','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1303,'AAALyH///og='),(4,'2010-08-16 22:44:02','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- rebased via \"git rebase --onto master 76f76715\" to avoid rebasing\n76f76715 again which was already submitted to master earlier\n- fixed typo in FileDiff',1303,'AAALyH///oM='),(4,'2010-08-16 22:40:26','Uploaded patch set 3.',1303,'AAALyH///oQ='),(2,'2010-08-16 16:40:30','Patch Set 2:\n\nCan you rebase and fix the merge conflicts?',1303,'AAALyH///ps='),(2,'2010-08-16 17:14:12','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nPlease rebase.',1303,'AAALyH///pU='),(6,'2010-08-13 15:13:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',1303,'AAALyH///ro='),(74,'2010-08-13 20:07:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1304,'AAALyH///rc='),(74,'2010-08-13 20:07:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nYep, confused me several times before too :)',1304,'AAALyH///rg='),(2,'2010-08-16 17:07:45','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good to me if \'Git Change Set\' is selected.\n\nWe can test further this week. I will send an email to egit-dev',1305,'AAALyH///pc='),(2,'2010-08-16 17:05:36','Uploaded patch set 3.',1305,'AAALyH///pg='),(2,'2010-08-16 17:07:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1305,'AAALyH///pY='),(49,'2010-08-16 15:27:43','Patch Set 2:\n\nThe testignore folder is included by \'Workspace\' and \'Java Workspace\' model\'s. This change add support for .gitignore only for \'Git Change Set\' and \'Git\' model\'s.\n\nAs far as I know there is no possibility to add .gitignore support to this two default model\'s.',1305,'AAALyH///qc='),(4,'2010-08-16 08:54:24','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis does not yet work:\n\n- clone jgit\n- do some changes and commit them to have some food for synchronization\n- create a file with some content at org.eclipse.jgit/target/a.txt\n- create a file with some content at org.eclipse.jgit/b.txt\n- create a file with some content at org.eclipse.jgit/testignore/c.txt\n- add /testignore to org.eclipse.jgit/.gitignore to instruct git to ignore all files under /testignore\n- on project org.eclipse.jgit click Team > Synchronize and select\nlocal .git repo master branch as source (check the local change checkbox) and origin/master as the target\n- result:\n   - org.eclipse.jgit/target/a.txt isn\'t shown : good, don\'t know yet\nif this is due to derived-ness of target folder or due to git-ignored folder\n   - org.eclipse.jgit/b.txt is shown as it\'s neither Eclipse-derived nor git-ignored : good\n   - org.eclipse.jgit/testignore/c.txt is shown : bad, this should be ignored\n- double check by clicking Team > Commit : this doesn\'t show org.eclipse.jgit/testignore/c.txt -> gitignore is working here',1305,'AAALyH///qw='),(49,'2010-08-15 13:21:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',1305,'AAALyH///rQ='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:44:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1306,'AAALyH///qE='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:44:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1306,'AAALyH///qI='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:44:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',1306,'AAALyH///qM='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:39:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1307,'AAALyH///qQ='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:39:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1307,'AAALyH///qU='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:38:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',1307,'AAALyH///qY='),(44,'2010-08-18 15:02:19','Patch Set 1:\n\nPorting this to DirCache later will be a problem.\nChange operations use Repository.lockDirCache(). This creates a new DirCache instance. \nThus e.g. a commit inside EGit using the Git porcelain API would cause an \"external change\".',1308,'AAALyH///kc='),(2,'2010-08-16 20:45:38','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nGitIndex is deprecated, we should avoid any changes do it and use DirCache.',1308,'AAALyH///o0='),(1,'2011-11-04 22:11:03','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nThis is not going anywhere, and Robin is proposing removing GitIndex.',1308,'AABOCH///r0='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:36:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1309,'AAALyH///io='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:36:22','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased onto current master, away from the other patches.',1309,'AAALyH///is='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:35:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',1309,'AAALyH///iw='),(4,'2010-08-15 21:39:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1309,'AAALyH///q8='),(8,'2010-09-13 18:59:36','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1310,'AAALy3///to='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:38:16','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nYea, I don\'t get why we need this change.',1310,'AAALyH///ik='),(4,'2010-08-16 21:35:11','Patch Set 1:\n\nDirCacheCheckout is almost there : http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,825',1310,'AAALyH///ow='),(8,'2010-08-16 04:58:27','Patch Set 1:\n\nWe need the DirCacheCheckout to replace GitIndex here.',1310,'AAALyH///q0='),(4,'2010-08-15 21:42:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nBoth GitIndex and Tree are deprecated, could we move the whole refresh stuff to DirCache ?',1310,'AAALyH///q4='),(8,'2010-08-15 15:20:10','Patch Set 1:\n\nNeeds Ie1b858d5d4df1d5fd1834688a3f799961be472bb',1311,'AAALyH///rE='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:46:10','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Robin.',1311,'AAALyn///d0='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:45:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',1311,'AAALyn///d4='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:46:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1311,'AAALyn///dw='),(49,'2010-08-27 23:00:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1311,'AAALyn///k4='),(8,'2010-08-25 23:15:33','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\nRmoved deps to deferred JGit patches',1311,'AAALyn///wE='),(8,'2010-08-25 23:13:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',1311,'AAALyn///wQ='),(2,'2010-08-16 20:25:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1312,'AAALyH///pA='),(2,'2010-08-16 20:25:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Dariusz.',1312,'AAALyH///pE='),(49,'2010-08-16 16:57:45','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis change do not touch any aspect of .gitignore support. Both TreeWalk\'s, old one in GitCommitMapping nad one in GitModelCommit do not include any support for .gitignore.\n\nFull .gitignore support is included in change 1305',1312,'AAALyH///pk='),(49,'2010-08-16 18:44:30','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed typo in commit message and rebased',1312,'AAALyH///pM='),(2,'2010-08-16 16:46:10','Patch Set 1:\n\nWon\'t this break .gitignore?\n\nShouldn\'t your tree walk include a NonIgnored filter?',1312,'AAALyH///po='),(49,'2010-08-16 18:43:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',1312,'AAALyH///pQ='),(6,'2010-08-18 10:05:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI still do not know if the RevObject\'s equality was changed on purpose.\n\nIn that case things would get complicated. We could try the trick wtih comparing classes (http://www.angelikalanger.com/Articles/JavaSolutions/SecretsOfEquals/Equals.html#Listing4) but this would be complicated because there are more than two classes in the Hierarchy. But then RevObjects and AnyObjectIds would never be equal to each other.',1313,'AAALyH///k0='),(1,'2010-08-18 19:00:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1313,'AAALyH///kA='),(1,'2010-08-18 19:00:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRevObject\'s equals() was changed to be identity equals because two RevCommits parsed by two different RevWalk instances aren\'t exactly equal.  You cannot use one RevCommit in the other RevWalk... their object pools are different.\n\nHowever I think this has turned out to be a non-issue.  Most developers are able to follow the rule of using only that RevWalk\'s RevObjects within the RevWalk that made them.  And if they don\'t, this different equals() implementation didn\'t help them to identify the problem.\n\nBasically, I royally screwed this up ages ago when I created RevObject/RevWalk.  Its taken us years to realize it, and SAP to fix it.  I think the change makes sense, we should do it as part of 0.9, and applications that were depending on reference equality of RevObjects should use == and not .equals().',1313,'AAALyH///kE='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:48:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1314,'AAALyH///p8='),(2,'2010-08-16 15:48:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis seems reasonable to me.',1314,'AAALyH///qA='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:41:12','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1315,'AAALyH///ic='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:49:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1315,'AAALyH///iQ='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:49:19','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1315,'AAALyH///iU='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:48:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',1315,'AAALyH///iY='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:51:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1316,'AAALyH///iE='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:51:09','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCherry-picked because I cherry-picked the parent.',1316,'AAALyH///iI='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:50:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',1316,'AAALyH///iM='),(2,'2010-08-16 20:27:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1317,'AAALyH///o4='),(2,'2010-08-16 20:27:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. Thanks Dariusz.',1317,'AAALyH///o8='),(2,'2010-08-17 15:20:50','Uploaded patch set 4.',1318,'AAALyH///m0='),(2,'2010-08-17 15:16:37','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI added an attachment to a bug to see what it would look like for y\'all...\n\nhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=176796',1318,'AAALyH///m4='),(2,'2010-08-17 15:08:09','Uploaded patch set 3.',1318,'AAALyH///m8='),(4,'2010-08-17 16:02:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1318,'AAALyH///mk='),(4,'2010-08-17 16:02:07','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed style nit',1318,'AAALyH///mo='),(4,'2010-08-17 16:00:13','Uploaded patch set 5.',1318,'AAALyH///ms='),(4,'2010-08-16 23:12:32','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\nCouldn\'t spot the visual effect in the repository view yet ...\nAny hint what this changes in the UI ?',1318,'AAALyH///oA='),(2,'2010-08-16 21:40:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1318,'AAALyH///os='),(2,'2010-08-16 22:30:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1319,'AAALyH///oc='),(2,'2010-08-16 22:30:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1319,'AAALyH///oY='),(2,'2010-11-15 15:39:46','Patch Set 3:\n\nThanks for the response Matt.\n\nJust checking if you\'re alive as we\'re planning to release 0.10 December 15th and if we want this in... would be good to get something squared away by the end of November.\n\nThanks!',1320,'AAAL0X///+A='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:43:08','Patch Set 3:\n\nMatt, are you still alive?',1320,'AAAL0X///+g='),(81,'2010-11-15 05:55:13','Patch Set 3:\n\nI am, but sadly I haven\'t been able to put any time into this lately.  I\'m hoping to work on it a bit this week.  Sorry for the delay. :(',1320,'AAAL0X///+M='),(81,'2010-11-15 18:00:51','Uploaded patch set 4.',1320,'AAAL0X///90='),(81,'2010-11-15 21:20:55','Patch Set 5:\n\nWoo hoo, I managed to sneak away to work on this for a little bit! :)\n\nThis should fix all of the style issues Shawn mentioned in the previous one.  I\'m still relatively confident that the basic algorithm in this version will work right, but I\'d really appreciate some review on that--there are a lot of weird edge cases.',1320,'AAAL0X///9U='),(81,'2010-11-15 21:09:42','Uploaded patch set 5.',1320,'AAAL0X///9Y='),(81,'2010-12-16 22:06:41','Patch Set 5:\n\nHas anybody had a chance to take a look at this yet?',1320,'AAAL13///7c='),(81,'2011-01-14 20:01:36','Patch Set 5:\n\nPing?',1320,'AAAL2n///40='),(81,'2011-03-23 03:10:41','Patch Set 5:\n\nThought I\'d drop by again to check on this.  Anybody else had a chance to look it over?',1320,'AAAL3n//+0c='),(2,'2010-09-13 13:38:23','Patch Set 3:\n\nShawn is on leave until October so his responses will be a bit slow. The rest of the EGit and JGit teams are focusing on shipping 0.9 so our responses will be a bit slow too.\n\nSorry for the delayed response.',1320,'AAALy3///uY='),(81,'2010-09-12 17:31:41','Patch Set 3:\n\nPing?',1320,'AAALy3///vw='),(81,'2010-08-19 14:40:14','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\nStyle comments are all simple enough--I\'ll submit a new version that has all of that taken care of.\n\nA couple other comments inline.',1320,'AAALyH///b8='),(1,'2010-08-19 02:16:03','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(25 inline comments)\n\nGreat start.  Tons of comments inline.',1320,'AAALyH///fY='),(2,'2010-08-17 16:45:46','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis will most likely need a CQ once ready Shawn. Let me know when it\'s in a good state and I can take care of the CQ process.',1320,'AAALyH///mY='),(1,'2010-08-19 19:24:52','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1320,'AAALyH///ZU='),(81,'2010-08-28 23:37:08','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1320,'AAALyn///jE='),(1,'2010-08-28 02:51:04','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(19 inline comments)\n\nYou almost might not want to bother reading these comments.  I\'m starting to realize its pretty complex and I don\'t feel like I fully understand it all myself.  I\'m going to try poking at it more tomorrow to see if I can get somewhere with it.',1320,'AAALyn///ko='),(81,'2010-08-25 20:17:36','Patch Set 3:\n\nOk, here\'s Round 2.  I think I hit all of the style issues from before, and addressed the commonBase problem we discussed.  I did it in a slightly different way than your suggestion, but I think it makes a little bit more sense given how the data comes into the generator.  Let me know if you see any problems with it.\n\nThe generator should now return all commits up to the specified depth, ignoring any that were part of commonBase.  But it will correctly start returning any commits below the boundary of a previous shallow checkout, and return all commits at the old boundary as UNINTERESTING so that the PackWriter can exclude the right things from the pack.  As far as I can tell, this is correct behavior in all cases.\n\nI couldn\'t do the SEEN thing like I was planning on doing, because uninteresting commits get the flag set on them as well (as part of markStart()), so sometimes it\'s already present on commits in our queue even though we haven\'t added all their parents yet.  I reworked the depth stuff a bit and added some comments, hopefully making it clear enough that the depth sorting accomplishes the same thing.\n\nI\'m cautiously optimistic that this is getting pretty close.  Please let me know if there\'s anything else that needs to be done to get this thing completely out the door.',1320,'AAALyn///wo='),(81,'2010-08-25 20:09:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',1320,'AAALyn///ws='),(81,'2010-08-25 20:00:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',1320,'AAALyn///ww='),(1,'2010-08-31 01:48:49','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1320,'AAALyn///Z8='),(1,'2010-10-28 18:52:29','Patch Set 3: (8 inline comments)\n\nPlease clean up some of the style issues, and upload a new version.',1320,'AAALzX///p4='),(81,'2010-10-26 20:26:04','Patch Set 3:\n\nWord on the street is that Shawn is back, or will be soon, so Brad suggested I poke this issue one more time.',1320,'AAALzX///uw='),(1,'2011-08-14 02:57:55','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Failed\n\nThis actually looks pretty good. I\'m going to try and combine it with the unit tests written by Alex and see if we can get a final patch together that is rebased on master and works correctly. Then we can run it through the IP process. Yay.\n\n(NB: My -1 build failed is actually a note that I know this needs to be rebased.)',1320,'AABOAn///cM='),(107,'2011-08-16 20:16:38','Patch Set 11: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/735/ : SUCCESS',1320,'AABOAn///Ho='),(107,'2011-08-16 20:13:00','Patch Set 11:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/735/ ',1320,'AABOAn///Hs='),(107,'2011-08-16 19:52:46','Patch Set 9: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/729/ : SUCCESS',1320,'AABOAn///I0='),(107,'2011-08-16 19:49:27','Patch Set 9:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/729/ ',1320,'AABOAn///I4='),(107,'2011-08-16 20:06:07','Patch Set 10:\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/732/ : SUCCESS',1320,'AABOAn///IA='),(1,'2011-08-16 20:02:29','Uploaded patch set 10.',1320,'AABOAn///Ic='),(1,'2011-08-16 20:04:47','Uploaded patch set 11.',1320,'AABOAn///IM='),(107,'2011-08-16 20:02:32','Patch Set 10:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/732/ ',1320,'AABOAn///IQ='),(1,'2011-08-16 19:54:42','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nI think this version fixes the stack trace servers get during the shallow clone over smart HTTP.',1320,'AABOAn///Is='),(1,'2011-08-16 17:13:37','Patch Set 8:\n\nThere was a bad interaction between this patch, and a change that I added to PackWriter more recently. I had to turn off my reorder commits logic when a shallow clone is being used, because the reordering was packing parent commits that should not have been included in the pack. Not your fault, since the code is newer than the last version you touched in the patch. :-)\n\nI think I also busted shallow clone over smart HTTP. The server always crashes with an exception during the exchange, but it works correctly. Smart HTTP clients have an extra intermediate request that the UploadPack code isn\'t expecting. I\'ll try to get it fixed just so we don\'t have the exception showing up in server logs.',1320,'AABOAn///J0='),(1,'2011-08-16 19:49:10','Uploaded patch set 9.',1320,'AABOAn///JE='),(81,'2011-08-15 16:09:54','Patch Set 8:\n\nAwesome, thanks for taking another look at this!  I\'m checking with a couple people here and making sure there aren\'t any issues with transferring the license, but this was all developed with the express purpose of being submitted to you guys, so I don\'t foresee any problems.\n\nI\'m not sure I completely understand your comments about the extra commits...is it doing something incorrectly?',1320,'AABOAn///Ss='),(1,'2011-08-15 00:35:16','Uploaded patch set 6.',1320,'AABOAn///X4='),(107,'2011-08-15 00:57:34','Patch Set 7:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/708/ ',1320,'AABOAn///Xc='),(1,'2011-08-15 01:13:00','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nMatt, can you login to Bugzilla and comment on [1]? We need a statement on Bugzilla from you that says the following:\n\n1.  You authored 100% of the content\n2.  You have the rights to contribute the content to Eclipse (to be augmented by employer consent)\n3.  You contribute the content under the EDL (BSD style license)\n\nhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=301627',1320,'AABOAn///XE='),(1,'2011-08-15 00:57:30','Uploaded patch set 7.',1320,'AABOAn///Xg='),(107,'2011-08-15 01:11:47','Patch Set 8: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/709/ : SUCCESS',1320,'AABOAn///XI='),(107,'2011-08-15 00:42:06','Patch Set 6: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/707/ : SUCCESS',1320,'AABOAn///Xk='),(107,'2011-08-15 01:08:30','Patch Set 8:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/709/ ',1320,'AABOAn///XM='),(107,'2011-08-15 00:38:42','Patch Set 6:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/707/ ',1320,'AABOAn///Xo='),(1,'2011-08-15 01:08:26','Uploaded patch set 8.',1320,'AABOAn///XQ='),(107,'2011-08-15 01:00:51','Patch Set 7: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/708/ : SUCCESS',1320,'AABOAn///XU='),(1,'2011-08-15 00:37:27','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nPatch set 6 is rebased and (mostly) works. Simple testing shows shallow clones and deepen requests are functional.\n\nThe shallow clone is a bit wrong right now; its over-transmitting a number of commits that should not have been set. 331 commits for a shallow clone of C Git are sent, but not expected, and show up as dangling commits on the client side.',1320,'AABOAn///Xw='),(1,'2011-08-15 00:58:42','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nPatch set 7 looks good to me. The extra commits was caused by the resorting process done during a normal pack creation. Since shallow clones are already pretty borked (and not likely to have many commits), I just bypassed that resort logic in PackWriter on a shallow pack.',1320,'AABOAn///XY='),(81,'2011-08-22 14:46:42','Patch Set 12:\n\nHuzzah!  Thanks for helping to get this pushed through (and thanks especially to Shawn, for going back and forth about a hundred times with me on the algorithmic details.)  Hopefully folks will find this useful.',1320,'AABOAn//+og='),(2,'2011-08-21 21:09:18','Patch Set 12: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThanks for your patience Matt :)',1320,'AABOAn//+p0='),(107,'2011-08-21 21:08:12','Patch Set 12: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/755/ : SUCCESS',1320,'AABOAn//+p4='),(107,'2011-08-21 21:04:50','Patch Set 12:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/755/ ',1320,'AABOAn//+p8='),(2,'2011-08-21 21:09:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1320,'AABOAn//+pw='),(2,'2011-08-21 21:04:46','Uploaded patch set 12.',1320,'AABOAn//+qA='),(4,'2010-08-17 11:44:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1321,'AAALyH///nQ='),(4,'2010-08-17 11:44:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1321,'AAALyH///nU='),(4,'2010-08-17 11:43:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',1321,'AAALyH///nY='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:31:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1322,'AAALyH///i0='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:31:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1322,'AAALyH///i4='),(1,'2010-08-18 23:31:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',1322,'AAALyH///i8='),(38,'2010-08-17 03:51:57','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'m not sure what the procedure to contribute changes to e/jgit is. Let me know if I should attach the patch to bugzilla as well.',1322,'AAALyH///n0='),(11,'2010-08-17 08:53:46','Patch Set 1:\n\nIt\'s OK to submit patch to Gerrit only, see http://wiki.eclipse.org/EGit/Contributor_Guide#Contributing_Patches for more details.',1322,'AAALyH///nk='),(44,'2010-08-19 13:24:15','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nProblem was fixed with Change I1375afc7',1323,'AAALyH///dU='),(46,'2010-08-17 09:15:54','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nAs discussed: looks like the \"active menu selection\" is not aware of multiple selection. Guess we need to always ask the page directly.',1323,'AAALyH///ng='),(1,'2010-08-19 18:26:25','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\nMy comments aren\'t complete.  Basically I\'m giving up on the review for now because you need to go back and rethink your logic a little given that you can\'t rely on raw.length being the \"end\" of what you want to examine.  (See my comment on line 705 of RawParseUtils.)',1324,'AAALyH///ac='),(51,'2010-08-19 13:35:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',1324,'AAALyH///dQ='),(1,'2010-08-18 19:15:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1324,'AAALyH///j0='),(51,'2010-08-17 15:56:54','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'ve encountered a commit with multiple authors in the perl repository[1], it\'s commit 13b79730adea97e660de84bbe67f9d7cbe344302 and the PersonIdent string (to be parsed) looks like\n\nM.J.T. Guy <mjtg@...>, Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@...> 900799070 +0000\n\n[1] git://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git',1324,'AAALyH///mw='),(2,'2010-08-17 14:48:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nWhat\'s the deal with multiple authors Shawn?',1324,'AAALyH///nA='),(1,'2010-08-26 19:00:58','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1324,'AAALyn///p0='),(1,'2010-08-26 19:00:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1324,'AAALyn///pw='),(51,'2010-08-26 10:47:43','Patch Set 4: (6 inline comments)\n\n',1324,'AAALyn///rc='),(51,'2010-08-26 10:59:00','Uploaded patch set 5.',1324,'AAALyn///rY='),(1,'2010-08-25 17:01:55','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(7 inline comments)\n\n',1324,'AAALyn///w4='),(51,'2010-08-20 13:22:49','Patch Set 3: Restored\n\nI just tried to get rid of Patch Set 3, not the whole change.',1324,'AAALyX///80='),(51,'2010-08-20 13:21:54','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nStill contains a minor problem.',1324,'AAALyX///84='),(51,'2010-08-20 13:23:39','Uploaded patch set 4.',1324,'AAALyX///8w='),(51,'2010-08-20 13:10:32','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1324,'AAALyX///9A='),(51,'2010-08-20 13:09:23','Uploaded patch set 3.',1324,'AAALyX///9E='),(2,'2010-08-17 16:45:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1325,'AAALyH///mc='),(2,'2010-08-17 16:45:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1325,'AAALyH///mg='),(2,'2010-08-19 00:50:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.\n\nWe should fix the failing UI test soon.',1326,'AAALyH///h0='),(2,'2010-08-19 00:50:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1326,'AAALyH///hw='),(4,'2010-08-18 23:20:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1326,'AAALyH///jU='),(46,'2010-08-18 15:55:49','Patch Set 2:\n\nChris, Paul: thanks a lot for following up here. As far as I could see, the issue is that the generic history view is activated and only then the Git History page is initialized which in turn is trying to set the selection provider (on the part site). This is too late, as the selection service is registering selection change listeners to the selection provider while activating the generic history view).\nAnyway, this change does away with this anyway.',1326,'AAALyH///kQ='),(46,'2010-08-18 15:50:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1326,'AAALyH///kU='),(2,'2010-08-18 15:18:52','Patch Set 1:\n\nTalking to Paul Webster earlier... he mentioned this...\n\n\"It seems like the getSelection(*) in your handler should be updated. Have it get the activeMenuSelection first, and only try \"selection\" if activeMenuSelection is not available.\n\nYou still need \"selection\" if the command has to respond to keybindings, since activeMenuSelection is only available while the context menu itself is shown.\"',1326,'AAALyH///kY='),(46,'2010-08-18 06:18:08','Patch Set 1:\n\nTo fix this, the Generic History View from the Team UI plugin must be changed. Even if they would do it today, we can\'t take advantage of it until the next release.',1326,'AAALyH///lk='),(8,'2010-08-18 05:49:42','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhy can\'t the bug be fixed?',1326,'AAALyH///lo='),(46,'2010-08-18 07:28:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nFound another problem.',1326,'AAALyH///lY='),(2,'2010-08-18 01:09:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1327,'AAALyH///ls='),(2,'2010-08-18 01:09:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. I\'m worried a bit regarding potential performance implications but we\'ll have to investigate later...',1327,'AAALyH///lw='),(46,'2010-08-18 06:31:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1328,'AAALyH///lc='),(46,'2010-08-18 06:31:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Chris.',1328,'AAALyH///lg='),(2,'2010-08-19 00:48:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1329,'AAALyH///h4='),(2,'2010-08-19 00:48:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, simple change.',1329,'AAALyH///h8='),(1,'2010-08-19 01:15:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1330,'AAALyH///hc='),(1,'2010-08-19 01:15:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNeeded to fix broken build due to JGit changing signatures.',1330,'AAALyH///hg='),(1,'2010-08-19 01:26:52','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nPending until I0ca35cfbfe3f503729cbfc1d5034ad4abcd1097e passes IP review.',1330,'AAALyH///hQ='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:06:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1330,'AAALyX///1g='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:06:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1330,'AAALyX///1k='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:06:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1330,'AAALyX///1o='),(2,'2010-08-19 01:58:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1331,'AAALyH///f4='),(1,'2010-08-19 02:19:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1331,'AAALyH///fM='),(1,'2010-08-19 02:19:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1331,'AAALyH///fQ='),(1,'2010-08-19 02:20:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1332,'AAALyH///fE='),(1,'2010-08-19 02:20:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1332,'AAALyH///fI='),(2,'2010-08-19 02:03:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThis is dependent on changes from JGit...\n\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1331',1332,'AAALyH///fw='),(1,'2010-08-19 02:22:24','Uploaded patch set 3.',1333,'AAALyH///e4='),(1,'2010-08-19 02:21:34','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1333,'AAALyH///e8='),(1,'2010-08-19 02:22:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1333,'AAALyH///eo='),(1,'2010-08-19 02:22:57','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1333,'AAALyH///es='),(1,'2010-08-19 02:22:45','Uploaded patch set 4.',1333,'AAALyH///ew='),(2,'2010-08-19 02:13:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1333,'AAALyH///fk='),(1,'2010-08-19 17:32:40','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1334,'AAALyH///bU='),(1,'2010-09-08 05:25:06','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nI think what we really want for pgm is show, which is in change I4dea84428d48b3de0e187c510b766f965323b21b.',1335,'AAALy3///7E='),(1,'2010-08-19 17:44:36','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nI disagree with Christian Halstrick here.  CatFile isn\'t magically special.  There is *no* value in providing a \"command\" for it in the API.  If an application needs to read an object, it should be using ObjectReader.open(), or Repository.open().  After that its just copying one stream to another.  Totally not worth having a whole \"command\" in our API.\n\nIMHO, stick to what you have here, aside from my review comments.',1335,'AAALyH///bE='),(5,'2010-08-19 06:00:46','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI would suggest to do the real work in a command in org.eclipse.jgit/src/org/eclipse/jgit/api. Your implementation in pgm should just reuse that command.\n\nProblem is that your \"git cat-file\" functionality is not reuseable from other parts (jgit-test, egit, ...) because it\'s hardcoded command-line. And I can imagine a lot of use-cases for cat-file in e.g. our tests.\n\nYou can just look at http://egit.eclipse.org/w/?p=jgit.git;a=blob;f=org.eclipse.jgit/src/org/eclipse/jgit/api/LogCommand.java or ask me for questions about our commands.',1335,'AAALyH///ek='),(5,'2010-08-25 12:09:38','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nI agree that we don\'t have to have this as a command in our API because the API should concentrate on porcelain commands. And cat-file is plumbing. So, also from my point of view, continue on this.',1335,'AAALyn///zI='),(46,'2010-08-19 12:59:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1336,'AAALyH///dg='),(46,'2010-08-19 12:59:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Jens.',1336,'AAALyH///dk='),(2,'2010-08-19 14:44:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1337,'AAALyH///b0='),(2,'2010-08-19 14:44:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',1337,'AAALyH///b4='),(2,'2010-08-19 14:44:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1337,'AAALyH///bw='),(6,'2010-08-19 12:43:54','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nDepends on JGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1226',1338,'AAALyH///do='),(2,'2010-08-30 23:57:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1338,'AAALyn///b8='),(2,'2010-08-30 23:57:29','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nTime to merge this in now.',1338,'AAALyn///cA='),(2,'2010-08-30 23:57:15','Uploaded patch set 4.',1338,'AAALyn///cE='),(6,'2010-08-25 13:26:08','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nShould be committed only after JGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1226.',1338,'AAALyn///yc='),(6,'2010-08-25 13:55:54','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nShould be committed only after JGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1226.',1338,'AAALyn///yE='),(5,'2010-08-25 13:22:21','Patch Set 2:\n\nrebased to master and factored out the change in exception handling into a new change #1415',1338,'AAALyn///yk='),(6,'2010-08-25 13:52:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',1338,'AAALyn///yM='),(5,'2010-08-25 13:18:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1338,'AAALyn///ys='),(2,'2010-08-19 14:35:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1339,'AAALyH///cA='),(2,'2010-08-19 14:35:13','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1339,'AAALyH///cE='),(2,'2010-08-19 14:34:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',1339,'AAALyH///cI='),(2,'2010-08-19 14:34:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',1339,'AAALyH///cM='),(1,'2010-08-19 19:01:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1340,'AAALyH///Zc='),(1,'2010-08-19 19:01:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1340,'AAALyH///Zs='),(1,'2010-08-19 19:01:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1341,'AAALyH///Zg='),(1,'2010-08-19 19:01:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1341,'AAALyH///Zw='),(1,'2010-08-19 19:00:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1342,'AAALyH///Z0='),(1,'2010-08-19 19:01:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1342,'AAALyH///Zk='),(1,'2010-08-19 19:00:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1343,'AAALyH///Z4='),(1,'2010-08-19 19:01:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1343,'AAALyH///Zo='),(4,'2010-08-19 22:58:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1344,'AAALyH///Y0='),(4,'2010-08-19 22:58:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1344,'AAALyH///Y4='),(4,'2010-08-19 23:02:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1345,'AAALyH///Ys='),(4,'2010-08-19 23:02:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1345,'AAALyH///Yw='),(4,'2010-08-19 23:28:19','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1346,'AAALyH///Yk='),(8,'2010-08-20 06:07:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',1346,'AAALyX////g='),(4,'2010-08-20 10:05:01','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1346,'AAALyX///94='),(4,'2010-08-20 10:09:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1346,'AAALyX///9o='),(4,'2010-08-19 23:29:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1347,'AAALyH///Yg='),(NULL,'2010-08-19 23:44:57','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* I4850da4b6d7758ffbbcc6d76e705d47abdd73490\n',1347,'AAALyH///YM='),(NULL,'2010-08-20 03:20:22','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',1347,'AAALyX////8='),(8,'2010-08-20 06:07:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',1347,'AAALyX////c='),(8,'2010-08-20 06:10:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',1347,'AAALyX////Q='),(4,'2010-08-20 10:06:05','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1347,'AAALyX///90='),(4,'2010-08-20 10:09:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1347,'AAALyX///9k='),(4,'2010-08-19 23:36:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nTypo, the commit message is a bit shuffled:\n\ns/reading merge the message/reading the merge message/\n\nother than that LGTM',1348,'AAALyH///YQ='),(8,'2010-08-20 06:07:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',1348,'AAALyX////o='),(8,'2010-08-20 05:40:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1348,'AAALyX////w='),(8,'2010-08-20 06:10:54','Uploaded patch set 4.',1348,'AAALyX////Y='),(4,'2010-08-20 10:09:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1348,'AAALyX///9g='),(4,'2010-08-20 10:07:02','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1348,'AAALyX///9w='),(4,'2010-08-19 23:46:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1349,'AAALyH///YI='),(NULL,'2010-08-20 03:20:22','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* I5da1b698b9583dcf2d3a8b23c4f016793064b152\n* I4850da4b6d7758ffbbcc6d76e705d47abdd73490\n',1349,'AAALyX////4='),(8,'2010-08-20 06:07:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',1349,'AAALyX////k='),(8,'2010-08-20 05:40:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1349,'AAALyX////s='),(8,'2010-08-20 06:10:54','Uploaded patch set 4.',1349,'AAALyX////U='),(4,'2010-08-20 10:10:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1349,'AAALyX///9c='),(4,'2010-08-20 10:08:39','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1349,'AAALyX///9s='),(49,'2010-08-22 19:19:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1350,'AAALyn////o='),(49,'2010-08-22 19:18:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1350,'AAALyn////s='),(2,'2010-08-23 14:35:35','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems fair.',1350,'AAALyn///9c='),(2,'2010-08-23 14:35:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',1350,'AAALyn///9g='),(2,'2010-08-23 15:08:03','Patch Set 3:\n\nI filed a bug to address Shawn\'s concerns...\n\nhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=323398',1350,'AAALyn///9M='),(1,'2010-08-23 14:39:12','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1350,'AAALyn///9Q='),(2,'2010-08-23 14:35:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1350,'AAALyn///9Y='),(2,'2010-08-20 04:10:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Remy!',1351,'AAALyX////0='),(4,'2010-08-20 13:10:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1351,'AAALyX///88='),(4,'2010-08-20 09:57:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nverified: this fixes the additional test failures with http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,825 I faced on Mac OS X',1352,'AAALyX///+I='),(2,'2010-08-20 16:50:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1352,'AAALyX///7g='),(2,'2010-08-20 16:50:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks guys.',1352,'AAALyX///7k='),(4,'2010-08-20 13:27:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1353,'AAALyX///8o='),(4,'2010-08-20 13:27:46','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1353,'AAALyX///8s='),(63,'2010-08-20 12:45:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1353,'AAALyX///9I='),(46,'2010-08-20 15:54:16','Patch Set 1:\n\nWell, I guess I botched it up in the first place, so I had to clean up behind me :-)...',1354,'AAALyX///8I='),(2,'2010-08-20 15:43:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1354,'AAALyX///8M='),(2,'2010-08-20 15:43:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks for doing this pain in the butt work Mathias :)',1354,'AAALyX///8Q='),(2,'2010-08-20 20:10:35','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s try that again after rebasing.',1355,'AAALyX///60='),(2,'2010-08-20 20:09:13','Uploaded patch set 3.',1355,'AAALyX///64='),(NULL,'2010-08-20 20:07:48','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1355,'AAALyX///68='),(2,'2010-08-20 20:10:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1355,'AAALyX///6w='),(2,'2010-08-20 20:07:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1355,'AAALyX///7A='),(46,'2010-08-20 15:57:36','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThis is sooo cool! I\'m just not sure if the usage of the JGit API is correct, so someone else should have a look. Also I think we need to find a better icon, but that\'s something we should discuss with Eitan (our UI guy at SAP) anyway in the course of the greater usability discussion around the history view.',1355,'AAALyX///8A='),(44,'2010-08-20 15:32:27','Patch Set 2:\n\nNew patch set due to \"white space error\" in the commit message\" :-)',1355,'AAALyX///8U='),(44,'2010-08-20 15:30:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',1355,'AAALyX///8Y='),(1,'2010-08-23 23:39:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1356,'AAALyn///7Y='),(1,'2010-08-27 01:53:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1356,'AAALyn///oA='),(1,'2010-08-27 01:53:19','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebase so it will submit.',1356,'AAALyn///oE='),(1,'2010-08-27 01:53:01','Uploaded patch set 3.',1356,'AAALyn///oI='),(NULL,'2010-08-27 01:50:49','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',1356,'AAALyn///oQ='),(NULL,'2010-08-26 21:54:43','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* I13f0f23ad60d98e5168118a7e7e7308e066ecf9c\n',1356,'AAALyn///pA='),(1,'2010-08-26 21:26:29','Patch Set 2:\n\nIf you want to submit this change, you need to also submit its parent (\"Implement a Dircache checkout (needed for merge)\") or cherry-pick it directly onto current master so it doesn\'t have that dependency.',1356,'AAALyn///pM='),(NULL,'2010-08-26 21:24:49','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',1356,'AAALyn///pU='),(NULL,'2010-08-26 18:49:08','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* I13f0f23ad60d98e5168118a7e7e7308e066ecf9c\n',1356,'AAALyn///qI='),(5,'2010-08-26 05:51:39','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1356,'AAALyn///sQ='),(5,'2010-08-25 10:12:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',1356,'AAALyn///zs='),(49,'2010-08-20 23:48:52','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1357,'AAALyX///5k='),(8,'2010-08-20 23:00:42','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\nA couple of thoughts...',1357,'AAALyX///6A='),(49,'2010-08-20 20:32:25','Uploaded patch set 4.',1357,'AAALyX///6k='),(49,'2010-08-20 20:22:55','Patch Set 3:\n\nIn case of equals(Object) implementation. I rewrite it and now it is more readable. The main idea of comparing \'baseCommit\' is that, when obj.getBestCommit() is null then also \'local\' \'baseCommit\' should be null. When obj.getBaseCommit() isn\'t null it should be same as \'baseCommit\'. I hope that I didn\'t miss anything here ...',1357,'AAALyX///6o='),(49,'2010-08-20 20:17:04','Uploaded patch set 3.',1357,'AAALyX///6s='),(2,'2010-08-20 22:52:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1357,'AAALyX///6U='),(2,'2010-08-20 22:52:25','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWorked for me while testing.\n\nDariusz, ideally it would be nice to write tests for this logic too.',1357,'AAALyX///6Y='),(63,'2010-08-20 19:17:48','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nhashCode() seems okay but equals(Object) looks incorrect to me.\n\nAlso, why is \'ancestorCommit\' being ignored? As a third party reading the code, I would expect it to be considered. If there is a reason why it is ignored, please inline comments into the two methods.',1357,'AAALyX///7E='),(49,'2010-08-20 18:46:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1357,'AAALyX///7M='),(49,'2010-08-20 18:39:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nIndeed \'baseCommit\' can be null, but this can only happen when remote commit has no parents. AFAIK in git there is only one commit object that has no parents, it is a initial commit. But yes, we should check here for null.',1357,'AAALyX///7Q='),(63,'2010-08-20 18:14:56','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\nIt feels to me like the code is susceptible to NPEs. From looking at the class, getBaseSha1() also looks like it\'s susceptible to NPEs so I\'d expect NPEs to also be thrown in getKind().\n\nIs it actually realistic for \'baseCommit\' to be \'null\' or should it \"never\" be \'null\'?',1357,'AAALyX///7U='),(49,'2010-08-22 21:42:25','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\n> isn\'t direction something the user decides on? This one can only tell that user added, delete or changed something relative to the merge base in non, one or both branches.\n\nYes, user can \'decides\' on \'direction\', changes that was marked as incoming when comparing \'origin/master\' vs \'current branch\' should be marked as outgoing wile synchronizing \'current branch vs \'origin/master\'. The same is with outgoing changes when source and destination branch will be shwitched.',1358,'AAALyn////I='),(6,'2010-08-23 14:07:19','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n> isn\'t direction something the user decides on? This one can only tell that user added, delete or changed something relative to the merge base in non, one or both branches.\n\n> Yes, user can \'decides\' on \'direction\', changes that was marked as incoming when comparing \'origin/master\' vs \'current branch\' should be marked as outgoing wile synchronizing \'current branch vs \'origin/master\'. The same is with outgoing changes when source and destination branch will be shwitched.\n\nI doubt that. In my opinion the synchronize API is made to compare the local state with any other state (see bug 322489). So everything that is there locally but not on the other state is an outgoing change, everything which is there on the other state but not locally is incoming. The other state is a remote server at CVS but can be any other commit at git (normally a branch or a tag).\n\nSo in git each commit I can reach from my HEAD but not from the other commit is outgoing, each commit I can reach from the other commit but not from my HEAD is incoming.',1358,'AAALyn///+A='),(6,'2010-08-27 14:40:16','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1358,'AAALyn///m4='),(6,'2010-08-27 15:15:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1358,'AAALyn///mQ='),(49,'2010-08-27 14:51:23','Uploaded patch set 6.',1358,'AAALyn///ms='),(6,'2010-08-27 15:15:17','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNice that we do not need IP review anymore ;-)',1358,'AAALyn///mU='),(49,'2010-08-27 14:50:45','Patch Set 5: No score\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1358,'AAALyn///mw='),(49,'2010-08-26 23:27:53','Uploaded patch set 5.',1358,'AAALyn///oc='),(49,'2010-08-26 23:30:24','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1358,'AAALyn///oY='),(49,'2010-08-26 19:55:02','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1358,'AAALyn///pk='),(49,'2010-08-25 21:28:37','Uploaded patch set 4.',1358,'AAALyn///wg='),(49,'2010-08-25 21:23:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',1358,'AAALyn///wk='),(49,'2010-08-25 21:31:19','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1358,'AAALyn///wY='),(8,'2010-08-21 13:52:39','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\nisn\'t direction something the user decides on? This one\ncan only tell that user added, delete or changed something relative to the merge base in non, one or both branches.\n\nI Am Not A Synchronize API Expert.',1358,'AAALyX///1A='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:28:34','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1358,'AAALyX///1Q='),(49,'2010-08-21 00:34:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',1358,'AAALyX///5M='),(2,'2010-08-21 16:59:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1359,'AAALyX///04='),(2,'2010-08-21 16:59:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good :)',1359,'AAALyX///08='),(49,'2010-08-22 22:35:23','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nOK, yours describsion seams to be reasonable ;)',1360,'AAALyn////A='),(63,'2010-08-22 20:45:53','Uploaded patch set 5.',1360,'AAALyn////c='),(63,'2010-08-22 21:46:37','Patch Set 5:\n\nWhen a synchronization request is sent, another job for processing subscriber change events are scheduled. This job, while updating the same label as the job that the synchronization request is performed on (which makes it seem like there is actually only one job running), does not appear to share the same progress monitor.\n\nHence, the synchronization job returns early while the subscriber event processing job runs to completion.',1360,'AAALyn////E='),(63,'2010-08-22 20:45:06','Uploaded patch set 4.',1360,'AAALyn////g='),(49,'2010-08-22 19:09:15','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI\'ve got NPE during synchornization:\nCaused by: java.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.fetchVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:77)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getResourceVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:153)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.getSyncInfo(ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.java:52)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.subscribers.Subscriber.getDiff(Subscriber.java:371)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.subscribers.Subscriber.accept(Subscriber.java:429)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.subscribers.Subscriber.accept(Subscriber.java:424)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.subscribers.Subscriber.accept(Subscriber.java:396)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberDiffTreeEventHandler.collectAll(SubscriberDiffTreeEventHandler.java:186)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.processEvent(SubscriberEventHandler.java:317)\n	... 3 more',1360,'AAALyn////w='),(49,'2010-08-22 20:51:19','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nOK, now NPE did not occur. But when I hit \'cancel\' synchronize operation is marked as \'canceled\' but it finish what it should done and even displays proper result. Therefore it seams that this change isn\'t work properly.',1360,'AAALyn////Y='),(63,'2010-08-23 00:05:18','Patch Set 5:\n\nTo be absolutely clear, from my analysis, I do not feel there is something wrong with EGit\'s current implementation of the Team APIs that is causing this discrepancy between the handling of these two jobs.',1360,'AAALyn///+8='),(2,'2010-08-23 14:27:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1360,'AAALyn///9s='),(2,'2010-08-23 14:26:59','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Remy.',1360,'AAALyn///9w='),(63,'2010-08-21 10:47:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',1360,'AAALyX///1I='),(63,'2010-08-20 23:48:47','Uploaded patch set 2.',1360,'AAALyX///5o='),(49,'2010-08-20 23:52:36','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\nCode style issues.',1360,'AAALyX///5Q='),(8,'2010-08-22 07:38:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1361,'AAALyn////0='),(8,'2010-08-22 07:38:28','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',1361,'AAALyn////4='),(8,'2010-08-22 07:38:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\nthe hashCode we xor with are well distributed, ie. think of them as random bits, therefor xoring them should continue to be random bits.\n\nTHe multiplication with a prime that is so common in hash code calculations is used to spread the values when the input is not a good hash by itself.',1361,'AAALyn////8='),(15,'2010-08-21 20:25:49','Patch Set 1:\n\nDoesn\'t this also increase the change of hashCode collisions, therefore reducing the performance of using GitModelCommit in HashMaps and the like?',1361,'AAALyX///00='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1362,'AAALyX///3k='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1362,'AAALyX///3o='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1363,'AAALyX///20='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1363,'AAALyX///3c='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1364,'AAALyX///28='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1364,'AAALyX///3g='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1365,'AAALyX///3E='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1365,'AAALyX///3w='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1366,'AAALyX///30='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1366,'AAALyX///3A='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1367,'AAALyX///24='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1367,'AAALyX///3s='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1368,'AAALyX///14='),(1,'2010-08-21 01:02:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1368,'AAALyX///18='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:45:00','Uploaded patch set 3.',1369,'AAALyn///5c='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:44:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',1369,'AAALyn///5g='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:45:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1369,'AAALyn///5U='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:45:23','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems reasonable.',1369,'AAALyn///5Y='),(5,'2010-08-23 08:24:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1370,'AAALyn///+0='),(2,'2010-08-23 14:25:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1370,'AAALyn///90='),(2,'2010-08-23 14:25:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks for catching this Christian.',1370,'AAALyn///94='),(46,'2010-08-23 13:45:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nSomeone deeper in JGit should also have a look. The History view behaves nicely now!',1371,'AAALyn///+Y='),(6,'2010-08-24 13:59:32','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nI implemented the approach suggested by Shawn in egit.\nReview: http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1392',1371,'AAALyn///34='),(1,'2010-08-23 15:38:14','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1371,'AAALyn///8s='),(2,'2010-08-23 15:28:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine to me.',1371,'AAALyn///9A='),(46,'2010-08-23 13:51:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1372,'AAALyn///+I='),(46,'2010-08-23 13:51:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Stefan.',1372,'AAALyn///+Q='),(46,'2010-08-23 13:51:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1373,'AAALyn///+M='),(46,'2010-08-23 13:50:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Stefan.',1373,'AAALyn///+U='),(49,'2010-09-15 17:36:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1374,'AAALy3///qc='),(49,'2010-09-15 17:36:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1374,'AAALy3///qg='),(46,'2010-08-23 13:39:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',1375,'AAALyn///+c='),(2,'2010-08-24 15:31:32','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, can\'t reproduce that previous NPE at the moment...',1375,'AAALyn///20='),(2,'2010-08-24 15:29:42','Uploaded patch set 6.',1375,'AAALyn///24='),(2,'2010-08-24 15:31:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1375,'AAALyn///2w='),(2,'2010-08-24 15:09:22','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nOn bug 315015, I specified a layout issue I was having. Once that is fixed, I believe this is safe to go.',1375,'AAALyn///3c='),(2,'2010-08-24 15:08:22','Uploaded patch set 4.',1375,'AAALyn///3g='),(46,'2010-08-24 15:25:48','Patch Set 5:\n\nDon\'t get this here, and it looks weird that the change should be related. Did you refresh your projects after fetching the change?',1375,'AAALyn///3I='),(2,'2010-08-24 15:23:37','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nBetter, the layout issue was fixed. However, I sometimes get an NPE when launching from the Git Repositories view...\n\njava.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Shell.createHandle(Shell.java:591)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.createWidget(Widget.java:568)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Control.createWidget(Control.java:879)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Scrollable.createWidget(Scrollable.java:159)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Shell.<init>(Shell.java:285)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Shell.<init>(Shell.java:363)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.window.Window.createShell(Window.java:487)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.window.Window.create(Window.java:430)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.dialogs.Dialog.create(Dialog.java:1089)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.window.Window.open(Window.java:790)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.repository.tree.command.CreateRepositoryCommand.execute(CreateRepositoryCommand.java:26)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.HandlerProxy.execute(HandlerProxy.java:293)\n	at org.eclipse.core.commands.Command.executeWithChecks(Command.java:476)\n	at org.eclipse.core.commands.ParameterizedCommand.executeWithChecks(ParameterizedCommand.java:508)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.HandlerService.executeCommand(HandlerService.java:169)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.SlaveHandlerService.executeCommand(SlaveHandlerService.java:241)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.SlaveHandlerService.executeCommand(SlaveHandlerService.java:241)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.menus.CommandContributionItem.handleWidgetSelection(CommandContributionItem.java:820)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.menus.CommandContributionItem.access$19(CommandContributionItem.java:806)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.menus.CommandContributionItem$5.handleEvent(CommandContributionItem.java:796)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.EventTable.sendEvent(EventTable.java:84)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.sendEvent(Display.java:3776)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1367)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1390)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1375)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.notifyListeners(Widget.java:1187)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.runDeferredEvents(Display.java:3622)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3277)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runEventLoop(Workbench.java:2629)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runUI(Workbench.java:2593)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.access$4(Workbench.java:2427)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench$7.run(Workbench.java:670)\n	at org.eclipse.core.databinding.observable.Realm.runWithDefault(Realm.java:332)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.createAndRunWorkbench(Workbench.java:663)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.PlatformUI.createAndRunWorkbench(PlatformUI.java:149)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ide.application.IDEApplication.start(IDEApplication.java:115)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.app.EclipseAppHandle.run(EclipseAppHandle.java:196)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.runApplication(EclipseAppLauncher.java:110)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.start(EclipseAppLauncher.java:79)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:369)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:179)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.invokeFramework(Main.java:619)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.basicRun(Main.java:574)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.run(Main.java:1407)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.main(Main.java:1383)',1375,'AAALyn///3M='),(46,'2010-08-24 15:19:30','Uploaded patch set 5.',1375,'AAALyn///3Y='),(46,'2010-08-24 07:03:02','Uploaded patch set 3.',1375,'AAALyn///4U='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:46:30','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCan you resolve conflicts and rebase?',1375,'AAALyn///5Q='),(46,'2010-08-24 07:22:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1376,'AAALyn///4I='),(46,'2010-08-24 07:22:40','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nOk for now. Unfortunately, the user does not get any feedback why the \"Create\" button is disabled. However, since we need to rework this dialog anyway (see bug 307039, bug 307112), let\'s do this separately.',1376,'AAALyn///4M='),(6,'2010-08-24 07:09:40','Uploaded patch set 3.',1376,'AAALyn///4Q='),(46,'2010-08-23 15:30:23','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n',1376,'AAALyn///80='),(46,'2010-08-23 15:30:11','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1376,'AAALyn///84='),(6,'2010-08-23 15:17:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1376,'AAALyn///9E='),(6,'2010-08-23 15:09:48','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThere is still a NullPointer',1376,'AAALyn///9I='),(2,'2010-08-23 16:43:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1377,'AAALyn///8c='),(2,'2010-08-23 16:42:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',1377,'AAALyn///8g='),(2,'2010-08-23 16:43:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1377,'AAALyn///8Y='),(2,'2010-08-23 18:02:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1378,'AAALyn///8Q='),(2,'2010-08-23 18:02:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, hopefully we don\'t get this by this in any other places... like where we use Commit...',1378,'AAALyn///8U='),(2,'2010-08-23 18:30:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1379,'AAALyn///8E='),(2,'2010-08-23 18:30:44','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nYes, this is a better way of dealing with preferences.\n\nThanks Mathias.',1379,'AAALyn///8I='),(2,'2010-08-23 18:29:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',1379,'AAALyn///8M='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:23:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1380,'AAALyn///60='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:23:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nJGit changes were merged, these have to go in.',1380,'AAALyn///64='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:24:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1381,'AAALyn///6s='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:24:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, It\'s good to not use deprecated classes anymore.',1381,'AAALyn///6w='),(2,'2010-08-23 21:50:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1382,'AAALyn///74='),(2,'2010-08-23 21:50:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Shawn.',1382,'AAALyn///78='),(1,'2010-08-24 18:47:08','Patch Set 1:\n\nIn a later change I add a format() method to these that actually does the \"building\".  If we simply renamed format() to build() then this perfectly fits the magical Builder pattern that people expect.',1383,'AAALyn///2c='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:23:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1383,'AAALyn///68='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:23:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. I\'m a bit torn on this on naming the objects *Builder as that usually implies you using the builder pattern which has a bunch of factory methods to build* stuff. I think this is better than we have now so we should let it slide. When we release 0.9 and do another API review for 1.0, we can revisit this topic again...',1383,'AAALyn///7A='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:28:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1384,'AAALyn///6k='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:28:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nMakes sense.',1384,'AAALyn///6o='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:28:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1385,'AAALyn///6c='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:28:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems reasonable.',1385,'AAALyn///6g='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:29:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1386,'AAALyn///6U='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:29:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1386,'AAALyn///6Y='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:30:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1387,'AAALyn///6M='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:30:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nIt\'s always nice to remove deprecated classes.',1387,'AAALyn///6Q='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:35:10','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Remy.',1388,'AAALyn///50='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:34:57','Uploaded patch set 3.',1388,'AAALyn///54='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:35:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1388,'AAALyn///5w='),(63,'2010-08-23 21:34:47','Uploaded patch set 2.',1388,'AAALyn///8A='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:32:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1389,'AAALyn///6E='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:32:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1389,'AAALyn///6I='),(NULL,'2010-08-24 02:32:51','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1390,'AAALyn///58='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:40:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1390,'AAALyn///5k='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:40:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1390,'AAALyn///5o='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:40:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',1390,'AAALyn///5s='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:32:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1390,'AAALyn///6A='),(2,'2010-08-24 14:40:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1391,'AAALyn///3k='),(2,'2010-08-24 14:40:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Benny.',1391,'AAALyn///3o='),(2,'2010-08-24 14:35:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1392,'AAALyn///30='),(2,'2010-08-24 14:35:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1392,'AAALyn///3s='),(2,'2010-08-24 14:35:23','Patch Set 1:\n\nLooks good.',1392,'AAALyn///3w='),(46,'2010-08-25 07:15:16','Uploaded patch set 4.',1393,'AAALyn///0M='),(46,'2010-08-25 07:03:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',1393,'AAALyn///0o='),(46,'2010-08-25 07:12:48','Uploaded patch set 3.',1393,'AAALyn///0Q='),(46,'2010-08-25 07:05:58','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWait a minute...',1393,'AAALyn///0U='),(46,'2010-08-25 07:03:44','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1393,'AAALyn///0Y='),(63,'2010-08-24 17:55:50','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nThere are other ways to retrieve information instead of downcasting.',1393,'AAALyn///2g='),(6,'2010-08-25 10:51:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1393,'AAALyn///zM='),(6,'2010-08-25 10:51:52','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks. Mathias!',1393,'AAALyn///zQ='),(74,'2010-08-24 23:08:02','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nHas the wrong author, seems to be an partly amend commit :/',1394,'AAALyn///2Y='),(2,'2010-08-30 21:01:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1395,'AAALyn///c8='),(2,'2010-08-30 21:01:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks for the contribution Benny.',1395,'AAALyn///dA='),(2,'2010-08-30 21:01:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',1395,'AAALyn///dE='),(1,'2010-08-25 01:44:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1396,'AAALyn///14='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:50:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1396,'AAALyn///vc='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:50:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks reasonable.',1396,'AAALyn///vg='),(4,'2010-08-25 12:36:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1396,'AAALyn///y0='),(1,'2010-08-25 01:44:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1397,'AAALyn///18='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:52:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1397,'AAALyn///vU='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:52:36','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nAgreed, looks good.',1397,'AAALyn///vY='),(4,'2010-08-25 12:35:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1397,'AAALyn///y4='),(1,'2010-08-25 01:44:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1398,'AAALyn///1w='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:54:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1398,'AAALyn///u8='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:54:32','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased and pushed.',1398,'AAALyn///vA='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:54:22','Uploaded patch set 3.',1398,'AAALyn///vE='),(NULL,'2010-08-25 23:53:49','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1398,'AAALyn///vI='),(NULL,'2010-08-25 23:53:15','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1398,'AAALyn///vM='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:53:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple change, looks good.',1398,'AAALyn///vQ='),(4,'2010-08-25 12:35:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1398,'AAALyn///y8='),(1,'2010-08-25 01:44:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1399,'AAALyn///10='),(NULL,'2010-08-26 00:03:21','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 2 of Ife255461, however the current patch set is 3.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1399,'AAALyn///u0='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:03:21','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, tests pass.',1399,'AAALyn///u4='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:04:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1399,'AAALyn///uk='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:04:19','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1399,'AAALyn///uo='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:04:08','Uploaded patch set 3.',1399,'AAALyn///us='),(NULL,'2010-08-26 00:03:26','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 2 of Ife255461, however the current patch set is 3.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1399,'AAALyn///uw='),(1,'2010-08-25 01:44:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',1400,'AAALyn///2I='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:06:50','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1400,'AAALyn///uc='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:06:36','Uploaded patch set 3.',1400,'AAALyn///ug='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:06:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1400,'AAALyn///uY='),(1,'2010-08-25 01:44:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',1401,'AAALyn///2M='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:13:40','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks fine, I\'ll push another change to use STREAM_THRESHOLD unless you have an objection.',1401,'AAALyn///t0='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:13:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1401,'AAALyn///tw='),(1,'2010-08-26 00:07:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',1401,'AAALyn///uE='),(1,'2010-08-25 01:44:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1402,'AAALyn///2A='),(1,'2010-08-26 00:07:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',1402,'AAALyn///t8='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:15:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1402,'AAALyn///tk='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:15:48','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1402,'AAALyn///to='),(1,'2010-08-25 01:44:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1403,'AAALyn///2E='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:18:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1403,'AAALyn///tc='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:18:30','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1403,'AAALyn///tg='),(1,'2010-08-26 00:07:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',1403,'AAALyn///uA='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:37:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1404,'AAALyn///sc='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:37:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1404,'AAALyn///sg='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:37:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',1404,'AAALyn///sk='),(4,'2010-08-25 08:41:49','Patch Set 2:\n\nremoved source bundles for tests',1405,'AAALyn///0A='),(4,'2010-08-25 00:42:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',1405,'AAALyn///2Q='),(2,'2010-08-25 00:27:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWe shouldn\'t generate source for our test bundles imho\n\nIf we want to do this, it should be done in a separate feature (I don\'t know of many projects that provide source bundles for their test plug-ins...)',1405,'AAALyn///2U='),(2,'2010-08-26 17:20:24','Uploaded patch set 4.',1405,'AAALyn///q0='),(2,'2010-08-26 17:15:50','Uploaded patch set 3.',1405,'AAALyn///q8='),(2,'2010-08-26 17:21:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1405,'AAALyn///qs='),(2,'2010-08-26 17:21:13','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRemoved org.eclipse.egit from the source feature.xml, there\'s really no source there that any cares about imho...',1405,'AAALyn///qw='),(1,'2010-08-25 01:44:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1406,'AAALyn///1o='),(1,'2010-08-25 01:44:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1406,'AAALyn///1s='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:18:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1407,'AAALyn///tU='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:18:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is better.',1407,'AAALyn///tY='),(1,'2010-08-26 00:07:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',1407,'AAALyn///uM='),(4,'2010-08-25 12:31:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1407,'AAALyn///zA='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:24:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1408,'AAALyn///tM='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:24:08','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. -gABBREV is new to me :)',1408,'AAALyn///tQ='),(1,'2010-08-26 00:07:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',1408,'AAALyn///uI='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:26:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1409,'AAALyn///tE='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:26:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1409,'AAALyn///tI='),(1,'2010-08-26 00:07:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',1409,'AAALyn///uQ='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:28:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1410,'AAALyn///s8='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:28:16','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1410,'AAALyn///tA='),(1,'2010-08-26 00:07:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',1410,'AAALyn///uU='),(4,'2010-08-25 12:28:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1410,'AAALyn///zE='),(46,'2010-08-25 10:39:01','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nDon\'t quite know how, but the change id got lost.',1411,'AAALyn///zU='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:36:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1412,'AAALyn///vk='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:36:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1412,'AAALyn///vo='),(63,'2010-08-25 14:27:55','Patch Set 1:\n\nThat\'s already been merged though and I don\'t think you can \"reopen\" stuff like you do in bugzilla? Or do you want me to inline the comment in there? The downcast occurs on lines 294 and 295.',1412,'AAALyn///x0='),(46,'2010-08-25 14:24:48','Patch Set 1:\n\nHi Remy,\nplease see http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1393 for the RepositoryActionHandler.',1412,'AAALyn///x4='),(46,'2010-08-25 14:55:24','Patch Set 1:\n\nSorry, I was confused because you said you didn\'t see any change there... Now it\'s clear, thank you. I pushed\n\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1419\n\nwith another iteration.',1412,'AAALyn///xs='),(63,'2010-08-25 13:25:08','Patch Set 1:\n\nI don\'t have an EGit development environment setup at work but I am not seeing any changes in RepositoryActionHandler. Its getSelection() method is still arbitrarily downcasting on returns from getVariable(String).',1412,'AAALyn///yg='),(44,'2010-08-25 12:56:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1412,'AAALyn///yw='),(6,'2010-09-07 14:58:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1413,'AAALy3///8c='),(6,'2010-09-07 14:58:15','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1413,'AAALy3///8g='),(74,'2010-08-31 21:00:13','Patch Set 3:\n\nYep, looks much better! Thanks',1413,'AAALyn///TM='),(74,'2010-08-31 21:00:06','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nYep, looks much better! Thanks',1413,'AAALyn///TQ='),(46,'2010-08-31 16:23:15','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebased, fixed another issue and added back a long-@Ignored test.',1413,'AAALyn///XA='),(46,'2010-08-31 16:22:03','Uploaded patch set 3.',1413,'AAALyn///XE='),(46,'2010-08-31 16:03:15','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nFound another problem',1413,'AAALyn///XI='),(46,'2010-08-25 15:51:30','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nOk, I\'ll have to go over this again as it seems (but at least the IndexOutOfBounds should have gone)...\nThe git-push docu says that remote URL is optional and defaults to URL. Thus we need to be a bit smarter as it appears.',1413,'AAALyn///xo='),(46,'2010-08-25 16:26:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',1413,'AAALyn///xU='),(74,'2010-08-25 14:54:52','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nMathias, your change doesn\'t work for any of the two scenarios for me. In both cases, the Push Confirmation page states that it cannot connect to any URI. As far as I can see, the PushOperationSpecification in revalidateImpl still does not honor the pushURIs',1413,'AAALyn///xw='),(NULL,'2010-08-30 07:30:00','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1414,'AAALyn///hc='),(NULL,'2010-08-30 07:29:35','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1414,'AAALyn///hg='),(46,'2010-08-30 07:29:34','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1414,'AAALyn///hk='),(46,'2010-08-30 07:41:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1414,'AAALyn///hQ='),(46,'2010-08-30 07:41:36','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1414,'AAALyn///hU='),(6,'2010-08-30 07:40:59','Uploaded patch set 3.',1414,'AAALyn///hY='),(6,'2010-08-26 15:33:43','Patch Set 2:\n\nI did the necessary refactoring in the predecessor commit.',1414,'AAALyn///rI='),(6,'2010-08-26 15:31:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',1414,'AAALyn///rM='),(46,'2010-08-25 17:15:35','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nWe need the same fix in CreateTagCommand. Much better would be to move that logic into the dialog where it belongs (let\'s follow up on this in  bug 323607).',1414,'AAALyn///w0='),(6,'2010-08-25 13:56:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1415,'AAALyn///x8='),(6,'2010-08-25 13:56:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1415,'AAALyn///yA='),(6,'2010-08-25 13:52:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',1415,'AAALyn///yI='),(5,'2010-08-25 13:20:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1415,'AAALyn///yo='),(NULL,'2010-08-25 13:26:51','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit c1ce8cb286323baa68e95141f7d5e28ed61a9dff which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1415,'AAALyn///yU='),(6,'2010-08-25 13:26:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1415,'AAALyn///yY='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:33:03','Uploaded patch set 3.',1416,'AAALyn///v0='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:33:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1416,'AAALyn///vs='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:33:23','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Benny.\n\nWe need to remove any deprecated calls like this.',1416,'AAALyn///vw='),(74,'2010-08-25 13:48:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',1416,'AAALyn///yQ='),(4,'2010-08-27 15:10:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1417,'AAALyn///mc='),(4,'2010-08-27 15:10:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1417,'AAALyn///mY='),(1,'2010-08-25 16:18:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1418,'AAALyn///xg='),(1,'2010-08-25 16:18:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1418,'AAALyn///xk='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:23:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1419,'AAALyn///v4='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:23:10','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1419,'AAALyn///v8='),(2,'2010-08-25 23:22:12','Uploaded patch set 3.',1419,'AAALyn///wA='),(46,'2010-08-25 16:49:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',1419,'AAALyn///xA='),(46,'2010-08-25 16:42:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1420,'AAALyn///xE='),(46,'2010-08-25 16:42:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1420,'AAALyn///xI='),(4,'2010-09-27 20:25:51','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1421,'AAALy3///Tc='),(2,'2010-09-27 21:49:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1421,'AAALy3///TE='),(2,'2010-09-27 21:49:00','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good...',1421,'AAALy3///TI='),(4,'2010-09-27 20:21:58','Uploaded patch set 3.',1421,'AAALy3///Tk='),(4,'2010-09-27 20:21:41','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1421,'AAALy3///To='),(46,'2010-09-27 12:02:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1421,'AAALy3///UU='),(46,'2010-08-27 06:57:00','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nYes, it will collide with\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1279\nI\'ll wait until 1279 is in and then reduce the scope of this to use the dedicated trace location.',1421,'AAALyn///n8='),(63,'2010-08-26 17:47:05','Patch Set 1:\n\nI think this change is going to collide with Robin\'s change?\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1279',1421,'AAALyn///qo='),(46,'2010-08-26 06:52:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1422,'AAALyn///r4='),(46,'2010-08-26 06:52:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1422,'AAALyn///sE='),(46,'2010-08-26 06:52:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1423,'AAALyn///sA='),(46,'2010-08-26 06:43:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1423,'AAALyn///sM='),(46,'2010-08-26 06:52:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1424,'AAALyn///r8='),(46,'2010-08-26 06:44:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1424,'AAALyn///sI='),(6,'2010-09-09 12:31:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1425,'AAALy3///00='),(6,'2010-09-09 12:56:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1425,'AAALy3///0E='),(6,'2010-09-09 12:56:58','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1425,'AAALy3///0I='),(6,'2010-09-09 12:56:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',1425,'AAALy3///0M='),(NULL,'2010-09-09 12:54:39','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1425,'AAALy3///0Q='),(6,'2010-09-09 12:54:39','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1425,'AAALy3///0U='),(NULL,'2010-09-09 12:31:43','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1425,'AAALy3///0w='),(6,'2010-09-09 12:54:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1425,'AAALy3///0Y='),(46,'2010-09-10 08:40:54','Patch Set 3:\n\nUnfortunately, this has broken the \"Refresh\" of the history view. I played around and found out that this can easily be fixed by setting currentHeadId to null in the refresh() method of the history page. No bug yet as bugzilla still seems to be down.',1425,'AAALy3///yc='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:29:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1426,'AAALyn///s0='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:29:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine./',1426,'AAALyn///s4='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:33:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1427,'AAALyn///ss='),(2,'2010-08-26 00:33:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1427,'AAALyn///sw='),(1,'2010-08-26 00:53:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1428,'AAALyn///sU='),(1,'2010-08-26 00:53:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1428,'AAALyn///sY='),(2,'2010-08-26 17:13:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1429,'AAALyn///rA='),(2,'2010-08-26 17:13:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks nice now.\n\nIn the future, we may want to add a banner to each of the dialogs to associate them with the Git tooling (like in the sync dialog)',1429,'AAALyn///rE='),(8,'2010-08-26 18:59:42','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nThis config cannot be used to write JUnit4 style tests...\nat least with Eclipse 3.5. Ju',1430,'AAALyn///p4='),(1,'2010-08-26 18:50:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1430,'AAALyn///p8='),(8,'2010-08-26 19:07:08','Patch Set 1:\n\nDoesn\'t work for Eclipse 3.6 and Junit4 style tests either.',1430,'AAALyn///ps='),(1,'2010-08-26 18:50:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1430,'AAALyn///qA='),(1,'2010-08-26 18:49:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1431,'AAALyn///qE='),(1,'2010-08-26 18:49:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1431,'AAALyn///qM='),(46,'2010-08-27 07:01:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1432,'AAALyn///n0='),(46,'2010-08-27 07:01:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Chris.',1432,'AAALyn///n4='),(1,'2010-08-26 21:54:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1433,'AAALyn///o8='),(1,'2010-08-26 21:54:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1433,'AAALyn///pE='),(2,'2010-08-26 22:25:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1434,'AAALyn///o0='),(2,'2010-08-26 22:25:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNeed to get egit compiling again...',1434,'AAALyn///o4='),(1,'2010-08-27 01:50:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1435,'AAALyn///oM='),(1,'2010-08-27 01:50:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1435,'AAALyn///oU='),(4,'2010-08-26 22:30:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',1435,'AAALyn///ow='),(1,'2010-08-26 22:56:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1436,'AAALyn///og='),(1,'2010-08-26 22:56:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1436,'AAALyn///ok='),(4,'2010-08-26 22:55:01','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhat\'s the difference compared to http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1432 ?',1436,'AAALyn///os='),(49,'2010-08-30 21:57:37','Uploaded patch set 3.',1437,'AAALyn///cc='),(49,'2010-08-30 21:57:29','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1437,'AAALyn///cg='),(8,'2010-08-30 18:03:27','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1437,'AAALyn///fQ='),(49,'2010-08-30 12:04:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',1437,'AAALyn///go='),(49,'2010-08-30 12:23:50','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\nThe 48b45f was miss pasted it should be ff8863.\n\nThis commit is a plain revert of d28a02 and ff8863. Both commits can be revert thanks of new implementation of RevModelRepository.getChildrenImpl()',1437,'AAALyn///gU='),(4,'2010-08-29 23:31:13','Patch Set 1:\n\nthe commit 48b45f you claim to revert here is http://egit.eclipse.org/w/?p=egit.git;a=commit;h=48b45f891822d40460e92c126e92acfa9aa06576 and doesn\'t look like being related to synchronize ...\n\nIs this a plain revert or do you fix the problem in a better way now ?',1437,'AAALyn///ho='),(49,'2010-08-27 23:01:13','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',1437,'AAALyn///k0='),(2,'2010-08-31 16:29:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1437,'AAALyn///W0='),(2,'2010-08-31 16:29:18','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1437,'AAALyn///W4='),(2,'2010-08-31 16:28:40','Uploaded patch set 4.',1437,'AAALyn///W8='),(4,'2010-08-27 13:31:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1438,'AAALyn///nc='),(4,'2010-08-27 13:31:56','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1438,'AAALyn///ng='),(4,'2010-08-27 13:31:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',1438,'AAALyn///nk='),(4,'2010-08-27 13:28:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',1438,'AAALyn///no='),(46,'2010-08-27 13:59:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1439,'AAALyn///nM='),(46,'2010-08-27 13:59:28','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1439,'AAALyn///nQ='),(6,'2010-08-27 13:56:14','Uploaded patch set 3.',1439,'AAALyn///nU='),(6,'2010-08-27 13:46:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',1439,'AAALyn///nY='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:41:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1440,'AAALyn///eE='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:41:34','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks for the cleanup guys.',1440,'AAALyn///eI='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:41:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',1440,'AAALyn///eM='),(74,'2010-08-30 09:52:19','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased, fixed conflicts and fixed compile errors introduced by the change in ValidationUtils',1440,'AAALyn///hA='),(74,'2010-08-30 09:52:16','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased, fixed conflicts and fixed compile errors introduced by the change in ValidationUtils',1440,'AAALyn///hE='),(74,'2010-08-30 09:52:07','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nRebased, fixed conflicts and fixed compile errors introduced by the change in ValidationUtils',1440,'AAALyn///hI='),(74,'2010-08-30 09:50:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',1440,'AAALyn///hM='),(1,'2010-08-29 00:31:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1441,'AAALyn///i8='),(1,'2010-08-29 00:31:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1441,'AAALyn///jA='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:22:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1442,'AAALyn///ek='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:22:51','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Matthias.',1442,'AAALyn///eo='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:20:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',1442,'AAALyn///es='),(4,'2010-08-29 22:00:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',1442,'AAALyn///iI='),(8,'2010-08-28 20:04:04','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1442,'AAALyn///jM='),(1,'2010-08-28 18:33:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',1442,'AAALyn///jU='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:39:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1443,'AAALyn///eQ='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:39:00','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Matthias, this should help our build situation.',1443,'AAALyn///eU='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:38:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',1443,'AAALyn///eY='),(4,'2010-08-27 23:26:22','Patch Set 1:\n\ndepends on JGit change  Ibc5a302078bfc01d9ee45a4c0ab0b79b2abd185a',1443,'AAALyn///kw='),(1,'2010-08-28 17:38:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks for improving the commit message.',1444,'AAALyn///j0='),(1,'2010-08-28 17:38:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1444,'AAALyn///jw='),(8,'2010-08-28 07:51:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',1444,'AAALyn///kk='),(1,'2010-08-28 18:29:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1445,'AAALyn///jo='),(1,'2010-08-28 18:29:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1445,'AAALyn///js='),(1,'2010-08-31 00:45:21','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(24 inline comments)\n\n',1446,'AAALyn///aY='),(51,'2010-08-30 13:40:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',1446,'AAALyn///gA='),(8,'2010-08-29 14:22:26','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1446,'AAALyn///is='),(1,'2010-08-31 19:08:38','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1446,'AAALyn///Uc='),(1,'2010-08-31 19:08:26','Uploaded patch set 4.',1446,'AAALyn///Ug='),(1,'2010-08-31 19:08:18','Patch Set 3: (6 inline comments)\n\n',1446,'AAALyn///Uk='),(1,'2010-08-31 19:08:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1446,'AAALyn///UY='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:47:55','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nSince we are down to three minor style-nits, I\'m going to just cherry-pick this and fixup myself.  Thanks.',1446,'AAALyn///VA='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:41:22','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1446,'AAALyn///VQ='),(51,'2010-08-31 12:19:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',1446,'AAALyn///X8='),(51,'2010-08-31 12:12:17','Patch Set 2: (23 inline comments)\n\n',1446,'AAALyn///YM='),(1,'2010-08-31 00:50:12','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1447,'AAALyn///aQ='),(51,'2010-08-30 13:40:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',1447,'AAALyn///gE='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:16:52','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nYay.  Three nits.  I\'ll cherry-pick and fix, thanks.',1447,'AAALyn///O8='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:19:57','Uploaded patch set 5.',1447,'AAALyn///Og='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:18:20','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1447,'AAALyn///Os='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:21:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1447,'AAALyn///OU='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:21:23','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1447,'AAALyn///OY='),(51,'2010-09-01 14:06:18','Uploaded patch set 4.',1447,'AAALyn///Qk='),(51,'2010-09-01 14:28:10','Patch Set 3: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1447,'AAALyn///QQ='),(1,'2010-08-31 19:31:39','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nAs I mentioned on the prior patch set, I still don\'t think we want this.  But if we do, we probably need to also expose the skip flag on DirCacheBuildIterator\'s constructor, and we need unit tests for the skipping behavior.',1447,'AAALyn///UE='),(1,'2010-08-31 19:30:24','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1447,'AAALyn///UI='),(51,'2010-08-31 12:19:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',1447,'AAALyn///YA='),(51,'2010-08-31 12:18:27','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1447,'AAALyn///YE='),(4,'2010-08-29 23:21:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',1448,'AAALyn///h0='),(4,'2010-08-29 23:22:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1448,'AAALyn///hs='),(4,'2010-08-29 23:22:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',1448,'AAALyn///hw='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:57:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1449,'AAALyn///dQ='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:57:53','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks great, thanks Matthias.',1449,'AAALyn///dU='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:57:31','Uploaded patch set 4.',1449,'AAALyn///dY='),(4,'2010-08-29 21:41:38','Uploaded patch set 3.',1449,'AAALyn///iM='),(4,'2010-08-29 21:37:03','Uploaded patch set 2.',1449,'AAALyn///iQ='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:59:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1450,'AAALyn///dI='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:59:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Christian.',1450,'AAALyn///dM='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:25:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1451,'AAALyn///ec='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:25:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1451,'AAALyn///eg='),(1,'2010-08-30 21:36:26','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1452,'AAALyn///cs='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:02:44','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1452,'AAALyn///Pc='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:02:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1452,'AAALyn///PY='),(46,'2010-09-01 07:16:48','Uploaded patch set 5.',1452,'AAALyn///Q8='),(46,'2010-09-01 07:18:08','Patch Set 4: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1452,'AAALyn///Qs='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:13:20','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1452,'AAALyn///WA='),(46,'2010-08-31 08:54:21','Uploaded patch set 4.',1452,'AAALyn///Yg='),(46,'2010-08-31 08:52:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',1452,'AAALyn///Yk='),(46,'2010-08-31 08:49:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',1452,'AAALyn///Yo='),(46,'2010-08-30 10:39:38','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nGood point, Benny. Submitted a JGit change.',1453,'AAALyn///g0='),(74,'2010-08-30 10:01:48','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1453,'AAALyn///g4='),(1,'2010-08-30 21:34:34','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1454,'AAALyn///c0='),(46,'2010-08-31 08:55:16','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nDrop it.',1454,'AAALyn///Yc='),(74,'2010-08-30 10:56:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1455,'AAALyn///gs='),(74,'2010-08-30 10:56:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1455,'AAALyn///gw='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:50:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1456,'AAALyn///dg='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:50:48','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNice improvement, thanks Jens.',1456,'AAALyn///dk='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:50:28','Uploaded patch set 4.',1456,'AAALyn///do='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:48:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',1456,'AAALyn///ds='),(44,'2010-08-30 14:41:38','Patch Set 1: (6 inline comments)\n\n',1456,'AAALyn///fc='),(44,'2010-08-30 15:07:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1456,'AAALyn///fY='),(63,'2010-08-30 12:40:36','Patch Set 1: (6 inline comments)\n\n',1456,'AAALyn///gI='),(4,'2010-08-31 14:05:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- verified with cyrillic string in versioned source',1457,'AAALyn///Xc='),(4,'2010-08-31 14:04:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1457,'AAALyn///Xg='),(4,'2010-08-31 14:05:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1457,'AAALyn///XY='),(1,'2010-08-30 18:55:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1458,'AAALyn///fA='),(1,'2010-08-30 18:55:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1458,'AAALyn///fE='),(1,'2010-08-30 18:55:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1459,'AAALyn///e8='),(1,'2010-08-30 18:55:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1459,'AAALyn///fM='),(1,'2010-08-30 18:55:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1460,'AAALyn///e4='),(1,'2010-08-30 18:55:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1460,'AAALyn///fI='),(2,'2010-08-30 20:51:46','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nA mistake, sorry.',1461,'AAALyn///dc='),(5,'2010-08-30 23:36:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1462,'AAALyn///cI='),(5,'2010-08-30 23:36:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1462,'AAALyn///cM='),(4,'2010-08-31 00:52:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1463,'AAALyn///aE='),(4,'2010-08-31 00:52:19','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased and reverified',1463,'AAALyn///aI='),(4,'2010-08-31 00:50:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',1463,'AAALyn///aM='),(2,'2010-08-31 16:31:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1464,'AAALyn///Wo='),(2,'2010-08-31 16:31:00','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good',1464,'AAALyn///Ws='),(2,'2010-08-31 16:30:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',1464,'AAALyn///Ww='),(46,'2010-08-31 13:38:04','Uploaded patch set 2.',1464,'AAALyn///X4='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:29:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1465,'AAALyn///Vc='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:29:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1465,'AAALyn///Vg='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:21:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',1466,'AAALyn///V0='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:20:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1466,'AAALyn///V4='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:27:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1466,'AAALyn///Vk='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:27:07','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1466,'AAALyn///Vs='),(2,'2010-09-02 01:29:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',1467,'AAALyn///N0='),(2,'2010-09-02 01:30:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1467,'AAALyn///Ns='),(2,'2010-09-02 01:30:11','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nShould be good now.',1467,'AAALyn///Nw='),(NULL,'2010-09-01 22:17:10','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1467,'AAALyn///O0='),(4,'2010-09-01 22:17:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nok let\'s try this in practice we can still add something later if others feel that the checked out branch should be visible in a more prominent place in repositories view',1467,'AAALyn///O4='),(74,'2010-09-01 22:20:09','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1467,'AAALyn///Oc='),(46,'2010-09-01 06:49:16','Patch Set 1:\n\nNot sure if this is really needed: the currently checked out branch is visualized now on the Repository node in brackets similar to the visualization in the Git Label decorator...\nI just saw that the heuristics of \"guessing\" the remote branch or tag in case of detached HEAD is missing from this visualization, but it should be easy to add it similar to the label decoration. \nHence, wouldn\'t we make this view unneccessarily complex by using upward inheritance for the \"checked out\" decoration?',1467,'AAALyn///RA='),(4,'2010-08-31 20:33:10','Patch Set 1:\n\nIn general I like the approach. \n\nI miss a visual hint which branch is currently checked out when this \nis buried in some closed tree nodes. You could either put some decorator on the parent nodes or display the full ref of the currently checked out branch name as additional information (in light grey font) appended to the \"Branches\" node :\n\ne.g. for jgit repo:\n\njgit\n    > Branches - refs/heads/master\n        > Local Branches\n            x master\n        > Remote Branches\n            > origin\n                master  \n                stable-0.7\n                stable-0.8\n\nThe same logic as in the package explorer decorators could be used to display the corresponding tag or shortened commitID when not the tip of a branch is checked out. This would mimic c-git showing this information in the command line prompt.',1467,'AAALyn///To='),(46,'2010-08-31 13:43:35','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nPlease add one line of docu to prevent that anyone tries to use getShell() again later...',1468,'AAALyn///X0='),(46,'2010-08-31 13:52:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1468,'AAALyn///Xo='),(46,'2010-08-31 13:52:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Jens.',1468,'AAALyn///Xs='),(44,'2010-08-31 13:47:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',1468,'AAALyn///Xw='),(46,'2010-08-31 13:59:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',1469,'AAALyn///Xk='),(2,'2010-08-31 14:21:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1469,'AAALyn///XQ='),(2,'2010-08-31 14:21:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nFair enough',1469,'AAALyn///XU='),(2,'2010-08-31 16:54:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',1470,'AAALyn///Wc='),(2,'2010-08-31 16:54:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1470,'AAALyn///WY='),(5,'2010-08-31 15:41:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1470,'AAALyn///XM='),(2,'2010-08-31 16:53:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1471,'AAALyn///Wg='),(2,'2010-08-31 16:53:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, I\'ll file a patch to remove the old PersonIndent constructor...',1471,'AAALyn///Wk='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:06:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1472,'AAALyn///WQ='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:06:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1472,'AAALyn///WU='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:27:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1473,'AAALyn///Vo='),(1,'2010-08-31 18:27:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1473,'AAALyn///Vw='),(4,'2010-09-01 11:53:43','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nwas done elsewhere already',1474,'AAALyn///Qo='),(4,'2010-08-31 20:07:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',1474,'AAALyn///T0='),(2,'2010-08-31 20:23:19','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nMake sure you\'re at HEAD, these changes should be in already...',1474,'AAALyn///Tw='),(1,'2010-08-31 20:03:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1475,'AAALyn///T4='),(1,'2010-08-31 20:03:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1475,'AAALyn///T8='),(51,'2010-08-31 20:01:09','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis is a fix for Change Ie6e9c6784c9f265ca3c013c6dc0e6bd29d3b7233 for which I had submitted the wrong file \"gitgit.index.v3.skipWorkTree\", the intended file was only located in my org.eclipse.jgit.test/bin - directory. Sorry :(',1475,'AAALyn///UA='),(74,'2010-11-09 16:16:59','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nYep, still in my queue to work on this but will not have any time before end of next week. Maybe you want to work on this in the meantime and we try to get this in shape together.',1476,'AAAL0H////M='),(8,'2010-12-30 14:09:20','Patch Set 1: (5 inline comments)\n\n',1476,'AAAL2X///2Y='),(74,'2011-03-15 18:51:19','Patch Set 1:\n\nFor Indigo, i will not find the time to work on this. Sorry.',1476,'AAAL3n///3U='),(130,'2011-03-15 13:48:28','Patch Set 1:\n\nAre you still working on this? Is it feasible to get this in shape for Indigo? Do you need help?',1476,'AAAL3n///7g='),(1,'2010-09-01 00:17:00','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(30 inline comments)\n\n',1476,'AAALyn///RI='),(74,'2010-08-31 20:32:19','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nShawn, would it be possible to have a quick look to get an overall feeling. I don\'t think you need to review code style issues at the moment as I\'m planning several refactorings and trying to adapt the jgit code style on the way.',1476,'AAALyn///Ts='),(79,'2010-11-04 14:46:51','Patch Set 1:\n\nBenjamin, are you still working on this? If not, I\'d be interested :).',1476,'AAALzn///8s='),(1,'2011-05-28 03:00:54','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nReplaced by change I84b8ea4838bb7d25f4fcdd540547884704661b8f.',1476,'AABOJn///+c='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:33:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1477,'AAALyn///OI='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:33:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1477,'AAALyn///OM='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:28:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',1477,'AAALyn///OQ='),(1,'2010-09-01 00:17:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI agree, we should move these to api.errors.',1477,'AAALyn///RE='),(2,'2010-08-31 20:49:56','Patch Set 1:\n\nAt the moment, just throwing this out there as an idea. Not sure I like mixing the exceptions and API in one package at the moment. I guess I\'ll let people comment before I waste anymore effort on this patch...',1477,'AAALyn///Tc='),(5,'2010-08-31 21:50:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI like that proposal. To be honest: I don\'t care in which package the exceptions are located and whether are all in the same package or not. But: I would like to have a clean package containing only Commands so that people can easily see what commands are available. Currently it\'s hard to tell what commands we have because the exceptions are in the same package. Refactoring all exceptions away in a subpackage helps a lot.',1477,'AAALyn///TI='),(46,'2010-09-01 14:35:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1478,'AAALyn///QI='),(46,'2010-09-01 14:35:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1478,'AAALyn///QM='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:47:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1479,'AAALyn///Kk='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:47:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis looks OK.',1479,'AAALyn///Ko='),(6,'2010-09-02 09:18:26','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1479,'AAALyn///NA='),(6,'2010-09-02 09:16:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1479,'AAALyn///NE='),(8,'2010-09-02 06:46:57','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1479,'AAALyn///NY='),(4,'2010-09-01 22:15:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1479,'AAALyn///PE='),(1,'2010-09-01 21:59:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1480,'AAALyn///Pg='),(1,'2010-09-01 21:59:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1480,'AAALyn///Pk='),(1,'2010-09-01 21:23:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1481,'AAALyn///P8='),(1,'2010-09-01 21:23:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1481,'AAALyn///Pw='),(1,'2010-09-01 21:23:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1482,'AAALyn///P0='),(1,'2010-09-01 21:23:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1482,'AAALyn///QA='),(1,'2010-09-01 21:23:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1483,'AAALyn///P4='),(1,'2010-09-01 21:22:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1483,'AAALyn///QE='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:20:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks reasonable.',1484,'AAALyn///L0='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:20:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1484,'AAALyn///Lw='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:28:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1485,'AAALyn///Lc='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:28:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1485,'AAALyn///LY='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:29:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1486,'AAALyn///LQ='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:29:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWe should document some of these threshold values in our official documentation so we don\'t forget...',1486,'AAALyn///LU='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:30:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1487,'AAALyn///LI='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:30:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1487,'AAALyn///LM='),(4,'2010-09-01 22:08:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1487,'AAALyn///PU='),(1,'2010-09-02 18:42:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1488,'AAALyn///Jg='),(1,'2010-09-02 18:42:21','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased onto current master, submitting due to Chris\' prior +2.',1488,'AAALyn///Jk='),(1,'2010-09-02 18:41:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1488,'AAALyn///Js='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:32:58','Patch Set 1:\n\nRebase when you have a moment Shawn.',1488,'AAALyn///K0='),(NULL,'2010-09-02 15:31:54','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1488,'AAALyn///LA='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:31:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1488,'AAALyn///LE='),(2,'2010-09-02 19:27:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1489,'AAALyn///I8='),(2,'2010-09-02 19:27:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1489,'AAALyn///JA='),(1,'2010-09-02 18:41:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',1489,'AAALyn///Jo='),(2,'2010-09-02 19:29:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1490,'AAALyn///I0='),(2,'2010-09-02 19:29:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1490,'AAALyn///I4='),(1,'2010-09-02 18:41:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1490,'AAALyn///J0='),(2,'2010-09-02 19:32:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1491,'AAALyn///Is='),(2,'2010-09-02 19:32:39','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1491,'AAALyn///Iw='),(1,'2010-09-02 18:41:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1491,'AAALyn///Jw='),(2,'2010-09-02 19:33:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1492,'AAALyn///Ik='),(2,'2010-09-02 19:33:08','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1492,'AAALyn///Io='),(1,'2010-09-02 18:41:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1492,'AAALyn///J8='),(4,'2010-09-03 00:09:32','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1493,'AAALyn///GI='),(1,'2010-09-02 18:41:57','Uploaded patch set 3.',1493,'AAALyn///J4='),(1,'2010-09-01 21:33:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',1493,'AAALyn///Po='),(1,'2010-09-06 15:37:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1493,'AAALyn//+94='),(1,'2010-09-06 15:37:28','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1493,'AAALyn//+98='),(1,'2010-09-02 19:38:59','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1494,'AAALyn///IM='),(2,'2010-09-02 19:37:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1494,'AAALyn///IU='),(2,'2010-09-02 19:37:14','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks fine, should use ConfigConstants when we can.',1494,'AAALyn///IY='),(1,'2010-09-02 18:41:57','Uploaded patch set 3.',1494,'AAALyn///KA='),(1,'2010-09-01 21:33:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',1494,'AAALyn///Ps='),(2,'2010-09-02 00:39:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1495,'AAALyn///N4='),(2,'2010-09-02 00:39:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks reasonable.',1495,'AAALyn///N8='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:44:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1496,'AAALyn///OA='),(1,'2010-09-01 22:44:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1496,'AAALyn///OE='),(2,'2010-10-07 16:33:42','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAbandoning change at this is being worked on by SAP now.',1497,'AAALy3///Dg='),(2,'2010-09-02 02:52:41','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis is a first pass of what a BranchCommand API would look like... looking for feedback...',1497,'AAALyn///No='),(1,'2010-09-06 15:57:09','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(23 inline comments)\n\n',1497,'AAALyn//+8Q='),(5,'2010-09-02 11:46:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1498,'AAALyn///M4='),(5,'2010-09-02 11:46:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1498,'AAALyn///M8='),(1,'2010-09-06 22:43:49','Uploaded patch set 7.',1499,'AAALy3////A='),(1,'2010-09-06 22:49:03','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nAddresses some of Christian\'s comments.  I also tried to improve the performance a bit by reusing the prior match data from the higher level invocations, but its hurting more than its helping for some input sizes on this trivial CharArray type.  In theory we should see really good results from something like RawText where lines would otherwise need to be compared often.  This might actually be completely unnecessary if I do that hash code normalization thing I was talking about in the refactor diff API change.\n\n    testMyers 10000 bytes took  491400 ns. N=20000, D=32, time/(N*D):7.68E-1, time/(N*D^2):2.4E-2\n testPatience 10000 bytes took 1342281 ns. N=20000, D=7, time/(N*D):9.59E0, time/(N*D^2):1.37E0\n\n    testMyers 20000 bytes took 1769911 ns. N=40000, D=64, time/(N*D):6.91E-1, time/(N*D^2):1.08E-2\n testPatience 20000 bytes took 5263157 ns. N=40000, D=13, time/(N*D):1.01E1, time/(N*D^2):7.79E-1\n\n    testMyers 40000 bytes took  7142857 ns. N=80000, D=131, time/(N*D):6.82E-1, time/(N*D^2):5.2E-3\n testPatience 40000 bytes took 12500000 ns. N=80000, D=25, time/(N*D):6.25E0, time/(N*D^2):2.5E-1\n\n    testMyers 80000 bytes took 26000000 ns. N=160000, D=263, time/(N*D):6.18E-1, time/(N*D^2):2.35E-3\n testPatience 80000 bytes took 32000000 ns. N=160000, D=50, time/(N*D):4E0, time/(N*D^2):8E-2\n\n    testMyers 160000 bytes took 116000000 ns. N=320000, D=528, time/(N*D):6.87E-1, time/(N*D^2):1.3E-3\n testPatience 160000 bytes took  76000000 ns. N=320000, D=100, time/(N*D):2.38E0, time/(N*D^2):2.38E-2\n\n    testMyers 320000 bytes took 438000000 ns. N=640000, D=1052, time/(N*D):6.51E-1, time/(N*D^2):6.18E-4\n testPatience 320000 bytes took 228000000 ns. N=640000, D=199, time/(N*D):1.79E0, time/(N*D^2):9E-3\n\n    testMyers 640000 bytes took 1753333333 ns. N=1280000, D=2104, time/(N*D):6.51E-1, time/(N*D^2):3.09E-4\n testPatience 640000 bytes took 696250000 ns. N=1280000, D=397, time/(N*D):1.37E0, time/(N*D^2):3.45E-3\n\n    testMyers 1280000 bytes took 7060000000 ns. N=2560000, D=4210, time/(N*D):6.55E-1, time/(N*D^2):1.56E-4\n testPatience 1280000 bytes took 2443333333 ns. N=2560000, D=793, time/(N*D):1.2E0, time/(N*D^2):1.52E-3',1499,'AAALy3///+8='),(2,'2010-09-21 20:46:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1499,'AAALy3///e0='),(2,'2010-09-21 20:46:38','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s do it.',1499,'AAALy3///e4='),(1,'2010-09-21 20:46:28','Patch Set 10: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI\'m still working on cleaning this up.  :-)',1499,'AAALy3///e8='),(2,'2010-09-21 20:47:27','Patch Set 10:\n\nClean up off of this one :/\n\nDidn\'t get your message.',1499,'AAALy3///ew='),(1,'2010-09-21 01:19:41','Uploaded patch set 10.',1499,'AAALy3///gI='),(1,'2010-09-16 02:01:56','Uploaded patch set 9.',1499,'AAALy3///p4='),(5,'2010-09-16 09:18:08','Patch Set 6:\n\nThat real-world example of jgit commit 741659fed4e73b71693b408e137804b17e65f0cb is exactly why I really wait for Patience diff. I tried even with native git with and without using the --patience-diff option. There I don\'t see a difference - I guess their non-patience-diff algorithm is more optimized than ours.',1499,'AAALy3///pc='),(1,'2010-09-12 18:45:16','Uploaded patch set 8.',1499,'AAALy3///vg='),(1,'2010-09-04 06:56:13','Uploaded patch set 6.',1499,'AAALyn///C4='),(1,'2010-09-04 07:02:40','Patch Set 6:\n\nThis version is much faster.  We\'re now very close to, or beating, MyersDiff for a number of cases:\n\n      testMyers 10000 bytes took      2101700 ns. N=20000, D=32, time/(N*D):3.28E0, time/(N*D^2):1.03E-1\n   testPatience 10000 bytes took      2700400 ns. N=20000, D=7, time/(N*D):1.93E1, time/(N*D^2):2.76E0\n\n      testMyers 20000 bytes took      6706800 ns. N=40000, D=64, time/(N*D):2.62E0, time/(N*D^2):4.09E-2\n   testPatience 20000 bytes took      9671800 ns. N=40000, D=13, time/(N*D):1.86E1, time/(N*D^2):1.43E0\n\n      testMyers 40000 bytes took     25308600 ns. N=80000, D=131, time/(N*D):2.41E0, time/(N*D^2):1.84E-2\n   testPatience 40000 bytes took     24428100 ns. N=80000, D=25, time/(N*D):1.22E1, time/(N*D^2):4.89E-1\n\n      testMyers 80000 bytes took     91582400 ns. N=160000, D=263, time/(N*D):2.18E0, time/(N*D^2):8.28E-3\n   testPatience 80000 bytes took     58544200 ns. N=160000, D=50, time/(N*D):7.32E0, time/(N*D^2):1.46E-1\n\n      testMyers 160000 bytes took    353431000 ns. N=320000, D=528, time/(N*D):2.09E0, time/(N*D^2):3.96E-3\n   testPatience 160000 bytes took    126835900 ns. N=320000, D=100, time/(N*D):3.96E0, time/(N*D^2):3.96E-2\n\n      testMyers 320000 bytes took   1377646250 ns. N=640000, D=1052, time/(N*D):2.05E0, time/(N*D^2):1.95E-3\n   testPatience 320000 bytes took    331710600 ns. N=640000, D=199, time/(N*D):2.6E0, time/(N*D^2):1.31E-2\n\n      testMyers 640000 bytes took   5480499000 ns. N=1280000, D=2104, time/(N*D):2.03E0, time/(N*D^2):9.67E-4\n   testPatience 640000 bytes took    994028666 ns. N=1280000, D=397, time/(N*D):1.96E0, time/(N*D^2):4.93E-3\n\n      testMyers 1280000 bytes took  21600751000 ns. N=2560000, D=4210, time/(N*D):2E0, time/(N*D^2):4.76E-4\n   testPatience 1280000 bytes took   3022629000 ns. N=2560000, D=793, time/(N*D):1.49E0, time/(N*D^2):1.88E-3',1499,'AAALyn///Cs='),(1,'2010-09-03 14:22:51','Patch Set 5:\n\nI guess its name is pretty accurate.  :-(\n\nI9a2803a4a9745e14c674717d6f766d64b4710188 contains some attempts to improve but, but I\'m not happy with it.',1499,'AAALyn///Ek='),(1,'2010-09-02 22:41:02','Patch Set 5:\n\nFor those following along at home, this is glacially slow:\n\ntestMyers 40000 bytes took 8695652 ns. N=80000, D=131, time/(N*D):8.3E-1, time/(N*D^2):6.33E-3\ntestPatience 40000 bytes took 160000000 ns. N=80000, D=25, time/(N*D):8E1, time/(N*D^2):3.2E0\n\nWe found fewer edits, and spent about 18x the amount of time to do it.',1499,'AAALyn///G0='),(1,'2010-09-02 22:37:52','Uploaded patch set 5.',1499,'AAALyn///G4='),(4,'2010-09-03 00:29:45','Patch Set 5:\n\nso this strategy\'s name is well chosen, you need patience to wait for its results :-)',1499,'AAALyn///GE='),(1,'2010-09-02 21:42:08','Uploaded patch set 3.',1499,'AAALyn///H0='),(1,'2010-09-02 21:57:03','Uploaded patch set 4.',1499,'AAALyn///Hg='),(1,'2010-09-02 22:00:51','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI\'m happy with this initial implementation.  Its not optimized, but its rather clear to read and follow, and unit test coverage is quite high.',1499,'AAALyn///HQ='),(1,'2010-09-02 04:21:44','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis is really RFC right now.  I know how to optimize this code to run faster, but this version is currently really clear and not optimized.  Tomorrow I\'ll try to do a bit of refactoring which may help to make some optimizations easier.  If that works, I\'ll amend this change to include the refactoring first.\n\nBut my plan for this series is to get a simple implementation working, then do follow-on commits to optimize it to run as fast as we can reasonably make it.  Long term I think we\'ll replace MyersDiff with PatienceDiff as our primary diff algorithm.',1499,'AAALyn///Nk='),(1,'2010-09-02 07:48:07','Patch Set 2:\n\nPatch set 2 has the refactoring done that I was talking about.  I think its way shorter than MyersDiff, and a whole lot easier to understand.\n\nIts still not optimized, but this naive version isn\'t horrible.  I\'ll look at optimizing it a little tomorrow as a follow-up change.  I don\'t want to make the code review impossible by combing the basic algorithm with optimizations applied on top of it.',1499,'AAALyn///NQ='),(1,'2010-09-02 07:45:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',1499,'AAALyn///NU='),(1,'2010-09-06 16:40:12','Patch Set 6: (5 inline comments)\n\nFWIW, I\'m still not done speeding up PatienceDiff.  I think we can do even better than we are doing right now.  Some of the ideas may even be leveraged back into MyersDiff.  I just haven\'t thought about doing that yet because its still a big ugly black box to me.\n\nComing up with D=793 on PatienceDiff when MyersDiff comes up with D=4210 is because we are only looking at unique common lines.  When PatienceDiff cannot find a unique line in a region, it just bails and does a giant replace, while MyersDiff continues to look for context.\n\nIf we plugged in MyersDiff at this point as a fallback, we should get D=4210 again.  But I\'m not sure that is the best immediate fallback strategy.  We could instead build a histogram of the common lines and pick the least duplicated common lines and try to find the LCS around those.  By using least duplicated we should still avoid nasty cases like \"\\t}\\n\" as being an anchor point for the matching, but would still be able to break out of the degenerate case.\n\nThus far I have done only very limited testing of PatienceDiff on real-world input.  I did wire it into DiffFormatter and run `jgit log -p` to scan through the diffs.  I didn\'t see any obvious variations from MyersDiff, but I don\'t think recent JGit history is a poster child for where patience diff is supposed to produce more readable results.\n\nIn case you didn\'t know, my motivation behind PatienceDiff was to find another solution to Gerrit issue 487 [1], infinite loop in MyersDiff.  Unfortunately patience diff really fails on single-character sequences (due to insufficient common unique points), but the algorithm is trivially simple and easy to prove that it will terminate.  I\'m probably going to try and do a word-level variant of RawText and see if we can get a word-level thing to work better under PatienceDiff for the intraline difference coloring in Gerrit.\n\nAlso, MyersDiff is really slow for Gerrit.  For some patches it takes 2.5s to display the page.  Of that 2.5s, 2.450s is spent in MyersDiff doing the intraline work.  Getting a faster algorithm under it would be nice.\n\n[1] http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=487',1499,'AAALyn//+68='),(1,'2010-09-06 17:17:27','Patch Set 6:\n\nFYI, JGit commit 741659fed4e73b71693b408e137804b17e65f0cb now offers a great example of where PatienceDiff is better than MyersDiff.  In file DeltaStreamTest.java I added a whole new unit test block.  PatienceDiff correctly shows what I did:\n\n -		assertTrue(Arrays.equals(data, act));\n +		assertTrue(\"bulk read has same content\", Arrays.equals(data, act));\n +\n +		// Assert that smaller tiny reads have the same result too.\n +		//\n +		act = new byte[data.length];\n +		in = open();\n +		int read = 0;\n +		while (read < data.length) {\n +			int n = in.read(act, read, 128);\n +			if (n <= 0)\n +				break;\n +			read += n;\n +		}\n +		assertEquals(data.length, read);\n +		assertEquals(-1, in.read());\n +		assertTrue(\"small reads have same content\", Arrays.equals(data, act));\n  	}\n\nMyersDiff just shows a slop of intermixed add/deletes.  Of course I\'m sure there are some counter examples somewhere, but this type of edit is common enough to source code that PatienceDiff is more likely to be readable most of the time.',1499,'AAALyn//+6A='),(5,'2010-09-06 16:20:30','Patch Set 6: (5 inline comments)\n\nRegarding the latest performance improvements: that\'s really great and also votes for Patience diff as default diff.\n\nBut one more general view on it here: Shawn last comment contained lines like:\n     testMyers 1280000 bytes took  21600751000 ns. N=2560000, D=4210, time/(N*D):2E0, time/(N*D^2):4.76E-4\n   testPatience 1280000 bytes took   3022629000 ns. N=2560000, D=793, time/(N*D):1.49E0, time/(N*D^2):1.88E-3\n\nThis tells us that Patience diff can be even faster then Myers. But even more interesting to me is the value for D (the size of the found edit-script). PatienceDiff found an 5 times lesser edits than myers. I won\'t say that smaller edit-scripts (with probably huger regions) are better, but my big hope is that PatienceDiff brings \"better diffs\" regarding readability by humans. We should have tests with real-world content which proof that. Tests which show better quality of the diffs as listed here: http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/73318.html',1499,'AAALyn//+7c='),(5,'2010-09-02 11:53:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1500,'AAALyn///M0='),(5,'2010-09-02 11:53:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1500,'AAALyn///Mw='),(1,'2010-09-04 06:56:13','Uploaded patch set 3.',1501,'AAALyn///C8='),(5,'2010-09-04 08:06:58','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1501,'AAALyn///Co='),(1,'2010-09-02 21:42:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',1501,'AAALyn///H4='),(1,'2010-09-02 21:43:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1501,'AAALyn///Hw='),(5,'2010-09-02 21:21:11','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1501,'AAALyn///IA='),(1,'2010-09-02 20:07:53','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nDon\'t submit yet, I\'m going to squash in some new unit tests that I forgot to write.',1501,'AAALyn///II='),(1,'2010-09-02 18:20:24','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1501,'AAALyn///KE='),(5,'2010-09-02 12:09:45','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1501,'AAALyn///Mg='),(8,'2010-09-02 12:56:47','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1501,'AAALyn///MY='),(2,'2010-09-06 17:04:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1501,'AAALyn//+6U='),(2,'2010-09-06 17:04:51','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks reasonable.',1501,'AAALyn//+6Y='),(1,'2010-09-06 20:44:13','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1502,'AAALy3////0='),(1,'2010-09-06 22:43:48','Uploaded patch set 5.',1502,'AAALy3////E='),(5,'2010-09-06 21:31:13','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1502,'AAALy3////g='),(1,'2010-09-06 22:43:02','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1502,'AAALy3////M='),(2,'2010-09-07 02:37:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1502,'AAALy3///+E='),(2,'2010-09-07 02:37:33','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased and pushed.',1502,'AAALy3///+I='),(2,'2010-09-07 02:37:20','Uploaded patch set 6.',1502,'AAALy3///+M='),(NULL,'2010-09-07 02:36:05','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1502,'AAALy3///+Q='),(2,'2010-09-07 02:36:04','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1502,'AAALy3///+U='),(5,'2010-09-04 08:33:01','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\nI reviewed all modifications now. Looks good to me. I have only two minor comments.',1502,'AAALyn///Cc='),(1,'2010-09-04 06:56:13','Uploaded patch set 4.',1502,'AAALyn///DA='),(1,'2010-09-02 21:42:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',1502,'AAALyn///H8='),(1,'2010-09-02 21:57:02','Uploaded patch set 3.',1502,'AAALyn///Hk='),(1,'2010-09-02 21:59:50','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI think this version addresses the reviewer\'s comments.',1502,'AAALyn///HU='),(5,'2010-09-02 21:59:02','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1502,'AAALyn///HY='),(1,'2010-09-02 19:15:26','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1502,'AAALyn///JE='),(5,'2010-09-02 13:41:36','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\nsome basic comments before doing a full review',1502,'AAALyn///ME='),(44,'2010-09-04 19:40:47','Patch Set 3:\n\n1. Text fields for merge result are rendered grey in Windows (->read only) but white on Mac. I removed the border around the text fileds.\n\n2. I think the merge result should stay on top because it\'s the most important information of the dialog.\n\n3. To show Branch / Tag in the input table MergeResult needs to be extended. Already discussed with Chris.\n\n4. Changed column label from Id to Commit Id.',1503,'AAALyn///A0='),(44,'2010-09-04 19:33:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',1503,'AAALyn///A8='),(4,'2010-09-02 23:53:31','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThe text fields for merge result and new head look like they were editable but they are not (which makes sense). It should be visible that these fields are read-only.\n\nI think the merge inputs should be shown above the result since the operation starts from the inputs to result in the merge result.\n\nWould be also interesting to see which branch or tag has been merged into which branch (if a branch or tag has been merged).\n\nIt\'s not really obvious that the entries in the merge input table are representing commits since the column labels are rather generic.',1503,'AAALyn///Gk='),(44,'2010-09-02 13:12:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1503,'AAALyn///MQ='),(4,'2010-09-06 16:10:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1503,'AAALyn//+70='),(4,'2010-09-06 16:10:23','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1503,'AAALyn//+74='),(4,'2010-09-06 16:09:58','Uploaded patch set 4.',1503,'AAALyn//+78='),(4,'2010-09-06 23:11:24','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nplease also rebase',1504,'AAALy3///+0='),(74,'2010-09-06 23:26:46','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI have to second Chris here, I also don\'t think this should be (at least in this shape) part of the regular install. What I could imagine is that the preference page is not visible by default and we can fire it up with a command. Using a command for this has the advantage that everyone can easily execute it via Ctrl+3 but it doesn\'t clutter the UI in any way. Opinions?',1504,'AAALy3///+g='),(74,'2010-09-06 23:15:32','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1504,'AAALy3///+o='),(4,'2010-09-07 13:19:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1504,'AAALy3///80='),(4,'2010-09-07 13:19:26','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- fixed some typos\n- improved commit message',1504,'AAALy3///84='),(4,'2010-09-07 13:17:50','Uploaded patch set 6.',1504,'AAALy3///88='),(4,'2010-09-07 13:12:14','Uploaded patch set 5.',1504,'AAALy3///9A='),(46,'2010-09-07 12:53:33','Patch Set 4:\n\nForgot to externalize the command name...',1504,'AAALy3///9E='),(46,'2010-09-07 12:53:05','Uploaded patch set 4.',1504,'AAALy3///9I='),(46,'2010-09-07 11:56:58','Patch Set 3:\n\nGood idea with the command...',1504,'AAALy3///9M='),(46,'2010-09-07 11:56:14','Uploaded patch set 3.',1504,'AAALy3///9Q='),(46,'2010-09-02 15:32:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',1504,'AAALyn///K8='),(46,'2010-09-02 15:33:58','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1504,'AAALyn///Ks='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:19:51','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI wonder if this is something we want to provide out of the box... it\'s more of a debug utility for us imho... let\'s think about this a bit more...',1504,'AAALyn///L4='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:25:50','Patch Set 1: No score\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nIf that\'s the case, I would be more lenient to have this feature available in the earlier builds. As we get more stable, we can consider removing this if it isn\'t needed anymore.',1504,'AAALyn///Lg='),(46,'2010-09-02 15:23:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nI see your point. But we need to be able to tell a customer to send us a trace file...',1504,'AAALyn///Ls='),(1,'2010-09-06 22:43:48','Uploaded patch set 4.',1505,'AAALy3////I='),(5,'2010-09-08 12:54:07','Uploaded patch set 5.',1505,'AAALy3///50='),(5,'2010-09-08 12:47:34','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1505,'AAALy3///54='),(NULL,'2010-09-08 12:56:13','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 7 of Ic7a76df2, however the current patch set is 7.\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I45444677, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on patch set 1 of Id35ef478, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on patch set 5 of I559f494d, however the current patch set is 6.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1505,'AAALy3///5s='),(5,'2010-09-08 12:56:13','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nremoved unwanted System.out.printlns',1505,'AAALy3///5w='),(5,'2010-09-08 12:41:57','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1505,'AAALy3///6A='),(5,'2010-09-07 06:10:47','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1505,'AAALy3///90='),(15,'2010-09-07 10:31:46','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1505,'AAALy3///9U='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:11:39','Uploaded patch set 10.',1505,'AAALy3///dk='),(1,'2010-09-21 22:25:27','Uploaded patch set 9.',1505,'AAALy3///es='),(1,'2010-09-21 01:19:41','Uploaded patch set 8.',1505,'AAALy3///gM='),(1,'2010-09-16 02:01:56','Uploaded patch set 7.',1505,'AAALy3///p8='),(5,'2010-09-16 08:43:37','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1505,'AAALy3///pg='),(5,'2010-09-12 21:28:29','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1505,'AAALy3///vM='),(1,'2010-09-12 18:45:16','Uploaded patch set 6.',1505,'AAALy3///vo='),(1,'2010-09-25 02:12:53','Uploaded patch set 12.',1505,'AAALy3///W4='),(5,'2010-09-25 21:57:29','Patch Set 12: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1505,'AAALy3///Wc='),(1,'2010-09-25 02:16:43','Patch Set 12: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1505,'AAALy3///Wk='),(1,'2010-09-25 01:18:05','Uploaded patch set 11.',1505,'AAALy3///XU='),(5,'2010-10-11 11:46:32','Patch Set 12:\n\nYes, I agree fully that we should get rid of the performance tests on artifical data. Also MyersDiffPerformance test is now a candidate to be removed (or at least to be configured out of standard junit tests). Always takes a lot of time during the unit tests whichout bringing much new data.',1505,'AAALy3//+7A='),(1,'2010-10-10 21:43:05','Patch Set 12: Abandoned\n\nI\'d prefer to test performance by the debug-diff-algorithms program, as it lets us work against real-world data that people actually use and care about.',1505,'AAALy3//+8M='),(1,'2010-10-09 06:08:13','Patch Set 12: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1505,'AAALy3//+9A='),(1,'2010-09-04 06:56:13','Uploaded patch set 3.',1505,'AAALyn///DE='),(1,'2010-09-02 22:37:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',1505,'AAALyn///G8='),(1,'2010-09-02 22:19:40','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1505,'AAALyn///HA='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:19:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1506,'AAALyn///L8='),(2,'2010-09-02 15:19:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine. Thanks.',1506,'AAALyn///MA='),(46,'2010-09-03 11:12:59','Patch Set 4:\n\nAll inline comments and remarks done.',1507,'AAALyn///FE='),(46,'2010-09-03 11:11:55','Uploaded patch set 4.',1507,'AAALyn///FI='),(46,'2010-09-03 11:10:31','Uploaded patch set 3.',1507,'AAALyn///FM='),(46,'2010-09-03 10:59:25','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nwait a minute',1507,'AAALyn///FQ='),(46,'2010-09-03 10:54:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',1507,'AAALyn///FU='),(4,'2010-09-03 00:07:40','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\nfor folders the path should end with a trailing \'/\', e.g.\n\nFolder: org.eclipse.egit.ui/src/ [egit]\n\nFixing mnemonics looks uncorrelated and should go in a separate change.',1507,'AAALyn///GM='),(46,'2010-09-06 08:35:30','Patch Set 5:\n\nJust rebased.',1507,'AAALyn//+/4='),(46,'2010-09-06 08:35:06','Uploaded patch set 5.',1507,'AAALyn//+/8='),(6,'2010-09-06 08:57:32','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nPlease fix the typo.\n\nI think that the change brings a great improvement of history view usability.',1507,'AAALyn//+/c='),(6,'2010-09-06 11:00:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1507,'AAALyn//+/I='),(6,'2010-09-06 11:00:25','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood improvement',1507,'AAALyn//+/M='),(46,'2010-09-06 09:09:27','Uploaded patch set 6.',1507,'AAALyn//+/U='),(8,'2010-09-02 19:36:10','Patch Set 1:\n\nhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=324343',1508,'AAALyn///Ig='),(8,'2010-09-02 19:14:04','Patch Set 1:\n\nJUnit tests should not be dependent on sequence.',1508,'AAALyn///JM='),(8,'2010-09-02 19:14:04','Patch Set 1:\n\nJUnit tests should not be dependent on sequence.',1508,'AAALyn///JQ='),(8,'2010-09-02 19:14:04','Patch Set 1:\n\nJUnit tests should not be dependent on sequence.',1508,'AAALyn///JU='),(2,'2010-09-02 16:02:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1508,'AAALyn///Kc='),(2,'2010-09-02 16:02:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s do it.',1508,'AAALyn///Kg='),(44,'2010-09-02 16:11:53','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis fix is required to make EGit action Team->Reset work\n(Team->Reset checks the repository state).',1509,'AAALyn///KQ='),(2,'2010-09-02 16:10:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1509,'AAALyn///KU='),(2,'2010-09-02 16:10:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',1509,'AAALyn///KY='),(5,'2010-09-06 09:18:42','Patch Set 1:\n\nlooks ok to me.',1509,'AAALyn//+/Q='),(4,'2010-09-02 23:32:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1510,'AAALyn///Go='),(4,'2010-09-02 23:32:40','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1510,'AAALyn///Gs='),(4,'2010-09-02 23:31:53','Uploaded patch set 3.',1510,'AAALyn///Gw='),(44,'2010-09-02 21:16:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',1510,'AAALyn///IE='),(2,'2010-09-07 02:33:08','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1511,'AAALy3///+c='),(2,'2010-09-07 02:33:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1511,'AAALy3///+Y='),(1,'2010-09-04 06:56:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',1511,'AAALyn///DI='),(1,'2010-09-02 21:44:19','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1511,'AAALyn///Hs='),(49,'2010-09-06 21:25:45','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1512,'AAALy3////o='),(49,'2010-09-06 21:25:22','Uploaded patch set 3.',1512,'AAALy3////s='),(6,'2010-09-09 12:13:09','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nLooks good.\n\nPlease have a look at my comments.',1512,'AAALy3///1I='),(49,'2010-09-08 20:24:59','Uploaded patch set 4.',1512,'AAALy3///4I='),(6,'2010-09-08 15:40:06','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI would like to switch off the workspace model in case of comparing two arbitrary branches because it compares the workspace with the remote state. I suppose that here the team API must be extended.\n\nBut the main issue with this change is that the workspace model is now broken when the HEAD is synchronized with another branch. Now I do not see the local changes anymore, even if I check the \"Include local...\" checkbox.',1512,'AAALy3///4w='),(6,'2010-09-13 12:05:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1512,'AAALy3///u0='),(6,'2010-09-13 12:05:41','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks, Dariusz!',1512,'AAALy3///u4='),(49,'2010-09-09 18:22:06','Uploaded patch set 5.',1512,'AAALy3///zE='),(49,'2010-09-09 18:21:50','Patch Set 4: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1512,'AAALy3///zI='),(49,'2010-09-04 18:15:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',1512,'AAALyn///BI='),(74,'2010-09-04 17:21:14','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThe core.tests don\'t compile anymore with your changes due to GitBlobResourceVariant ctor changes.',1512,'AAALyn///BM='),(74,'2010-09-04 17:19:32','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1512,'AAALyn///BQ='),(6,'2010-09-06 11:26:25','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nNow the Git Change Set Model works fine for comparing two arbitrary branches.\n\nBut on the other hand, the workspace model is now broken when the HEAD is synchronized with another branch. In the workspace model the left side is the workspace version of the file. Now uncommitted changes are not visible anymore in the synchronize view.\n\nFurthermore the workspace model is still broken in case of comparing two arbitrary branches (see bug 322489). Could it be switched off in that case?',1512,'AAALyn//+/A='),(49,'2010-09-06 19:59:35','Patch Set 2:\n\nStefan, what you would like to switch off? GitSyncInfo in case of synchronizing with local changes or Workspace model when we synchronize two remote branches?',1512,'AAALyn//+5o='),(6,'2010-09-03 09:15:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1513,'AAALyn///F8='),(6,'2010-09-03 09:15:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRemoving dead code is always a good idea, even better if we get rid of warnings.',1513,'AAALyn///GA='),(49,'2010-09-08 23:32:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1514,'AAALy3///28='),(49,'2010-09-08 23:31:35','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1514,'AAALy3///3A='),(4,'2010-09-08 20:16:41','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master and resolved conflict\n- fixed minor style nit',1514,'AAALy3///4Q='),(4,'2010-09-08 20:14:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',1514,'AAALy3///4Y='),(49,'2010-09-04 20:08:19','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1514,'AAALyn///Ao='),(74,'2010-09-04 15:43:59','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1514,'AAALyn///B0='),(74,'2010-09-04 15:43:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1514,'AAALyn///B4='),(49,'2010-09-03 23:15:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1514,'AAALyn///DM='),(6,'2010-09-03 09:48:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1514,'AAALyn///Fk='),(4,'2010-09-03 09:44:22','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1514,'AAALyn///Fw='),(4,'2010-09-06 22:38:47','Uploaded patch set 3.',1515,'AAALy3////c='),(4,'2010-09-06 22:39:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1515,'AAALy3////U='),(4,'2010-09-06 22:39:14','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',1515,'AAALy3////Y='),(74,'2010-09-04 16:42:45','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1515,'AAALyn///Bo='),(74,'2010-09-04 16:40:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1515,'AAALyn///Bw='),(4,'2010-09-03 10:00:41','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1515,'AAALyn///Fc='),(2,'2010-09-04 21:03:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1516,'AAALyn///Ag='),(2,'2010-09-04 21:03:44','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Benny.',1516,'AAALyn///Ak='),(49,'2010-09-04 20:06:05','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\n',1516,'AAALyn///Aw='),(49,'2010-09-04 18:20:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1516,'AAALyn///BA='),(74,'2010-09-04 16:46:33','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1516,'AAALyn///Bc='),(74,'2010-09-04 16:46:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',1516,'AAALyn///Bk='),(4,'2010-09-03 11:14:28','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1516,'AAALyn///FA='),(46,'2010-09-06 08:55:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1517,'AAALyn//+/g='),(46,'2010-09-06 08:55:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGreat work.',1517,'AAALyn//+/o='),(46,'2010-09-06 08:49:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Benny.',1518,'AAALyn//+/0='),(46,'2010-09-06 08:55:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1518,'AAALyn//+/k='),(2,'2010-09-03 19:57:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1519,'AAALyn///D0='),(2,'2010-09-03 19:57:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',1519,'AAALyn///D4='),(49,'2010-09-03 18:39:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1519,'AAALyn///EE='),(4,'2010-09-03 19:32:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1520,'AAALyn///D8='),(4,'2010-09-03 19:32:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nVerified on Mac OS X 10.6.4 64 bit Cocoa',1520,'AAALyn///EA='),(44,'2010-09-03 16:39:13','Patch Set 2:\n\nChecked that AllLocalTests suite still runs on Windows.',1520,'AAALyn///Ec='),(44,'2010-09-03 15:36:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',1520,'AAALyn///Eg='),(6,'2010-09-06 08:32:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1521,'AAALyn///AA='),(6,'2010-09-06 08:32:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1521,'AAALyn///AE='),(74,'2010-09-04 17:11:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1521,'AAALyn///BY='),(1,'2010-09-04 06:59:11','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nUnnecessary now given updated original version.',1522,'AAALyn///Cw='),(1,'2010-09-04 06:58:55','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nImprovements squashed into the original commit.',1523,'AAALyn///C0='),(1,'2010-09-03 14:22:12','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\nI have to put this down for now, but I\'m posting this with notes inline on certain lines of code to at least save my current state and make it visible to everyone else.\n\nI\'m rather disappointed in the current performance of PatienceDiff.  It may be because of the sorting of the index; using a hashtable with near constant time insertion might be more efficient.\n\nWe may also be looking at a very bad input.  CharArray has skewed semantics where equals() is faster than most other operations.  This isn\'t true on RawText, or probably any other more complex sequence object.  Trying to avoid equals() only costs us running time, but it should save a lot of time on a more realistic source code-like file.',1523,'AAALyn///Eo='),(1,'2010-09-03 18:15:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1524,'AAALyn///EI='),(NULL,'2010-09-03 18:09:11','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1524,'AAALyn///EU='),(1,'2010-09-03 18:09:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1524,'AAALyn///EY='),(1,'2010-09-03 18:15:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1525,'AAALyn///EM='),(1,'2010-09-03 18:15:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1525,'AAALyn///EQ='),(2,'2010-09-03 19:58:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1526,'AAALyn///Ds='),(2,'2010-09-03 19:58:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine, thanks.',1526,'AAALyn///Dw='),(1,'2010-09-03 20:43:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1527,'AAALyn///Dk='),(1,'2010-09-03 20:43:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1527,'AAALyn///Do='),(1,'2010-09-03 20:44:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1528,'AAALyn///Dc='),(1,'2010-09-03 20:43:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1528,'AAALyn///Dg='),(1,'2010-09-06 16:06:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1529,'AAALyn//+8A='),(1,'2010-09-06 16:06:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1529,'AAALyn//+8E='),(74,'2010-09-04 19:34:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',1530,'AAALyn///A4='),(2,'2010-09-04 21:04:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1530,'AAALyn///Ac='),(2,'2010-09-04 21:04:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1530,'AAALyn///AY='),(74,'2011-01-13 19:22:54','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nYep, the initial thought was to eliminate the existing warnings but as stated above by Robin, these pop up again depending on the target platform you\'re using.\n\nAbandoning this.',1531,'AAAL2n///8g='),(44,'2011-01-11 12:58:49','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI recently added a TODO comment for both usages of setDerived in commit b07033deb2140b321b8d4882161f6e0431bcdb20.\nSo I think this change could be abandoned.',1531,'AAAL2X///fk='),(4,'2010-09-07 15:13:58','Patch Set 1:\n\nthe mail announcing that 0.9 will support Eclipse 3.5 SR2 or newer is here :\n\nhttp://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/egit-dev/msg01277.html',1531,'AAALy3///8U='),(63,'2010-09-07 13:51:39','Patch Set 1:\n\nActually, I thought we were targeting 3.4. Did I miss a memo?\n\nIn any case, I think it would be better to inline comments then to suppress the warning with annotations.',1531,'AAALy3///8w='),(8,'2010-09-04 21:48:06','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nIn eclipse 3.5 you get another warning:\nUnnecessary @SuppressWarnings(\"deprecation\")',1531,'AAALyn///AQ='),(8,'2010-09-04 21:28:33','Patch Set 1:\n\nA problem with @SupressWarning is that it is too coarse.This would be the first deprecated warning to suppress and I\'m not convinced it is a good idea. We are programming for the 3.5 API and you will get different warnings depending on the Eclipse version you are running. This differs from other warnings, that do not depend on our Eclipse version. I.e. we know better what is hidden.\n\nThe SupressWarning annotation should perhaps refer to the use of addDerived, because anyone looking at the code with Eclipse 3.5 will not understand the problem. Replacement for what?\n\nYou can hide warnings in the problem filter.',1531,'AAALyn///AU='),(2,'2010-09-06 16:47:10','Patch Set 1:\n\nIs there a reason you\'re using 3.5 for dev still Robin?',1531,'AAALyn//+6c='),(8,'2010-12-12 23:13:39','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI agree with Mathias on all points.',1532,'AAAL1X///9Q='),(46,'2011-01-13 17:12:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1532,'AAAL2n///84='),(4,'2011-01-13 22:36:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1532,'AAAL2n///8A='),(4,'2011-01-13 22:36:51','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- improved commit message formatting',1532,'AAAL2n///8E='),(4,'2011-01-13 22:27:08','Uploaded patch set 3.',1532,'AAAL2n///8I='),(46,'2010-09-06 09:02:54','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nHmm... From a usability point of view, I would opt against this behavior. The user will not understand why a branch name is suggested sometimes and somtimes not. They might even start to type in the name of the \"local\"-ized remote branch name just to see the same error message. I think they are better off seeing the message immediately and get a chance to overwrite the name before continuing.\nIt might be worthwile, however, to think about selecting the complete name (no matter whether an error is shown) so that the first key typed (other than \"End\") overwrites the complete text, i.e. the user does not have to mark the text first if they need to enter a completely new name.',1532,'AAALyn//+/Y='),(6,'2010-09-06 13:33:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1533,'AAALyn//++g='),(6,'2010-09-06 13:33:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1533,'AAALyn//++k='),(8,'2010-09-04 22:01:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',1534,'AAALyn///AM='),(6,'2010-09-06 13:34:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1534,'AAALyn//++c='),(6,'2010-09-06 13:34:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1534,'AAALyn//++Y='),(49,'2010-09-06 11:57:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',1535,'AAALyn//++0='),(6,'2010-09-06 11:51:43','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nGood refactoring.\n\nPlease correct the typo.',1535,'AAALyn//++4='),(6,'2010-09-06 13:31:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1535,'AAALyn//++o='),(6,'2010-09-06 13:31:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1535,'AAALyn//++s='),(4,'2010-09-06 14:57:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1536,'AAALyn//++M='),(4,'2010-09-06 14:57:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1536,'AAALyn//++Q='),(2,'2010-09-06 16:43:06','Patch Set 2:\n\nLooks good.',1537,'AAALyn//+60='),(2,'2010-09-06 16:43:06','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1537,'AAALyn//+64='),(2,'2010-09-06 16:43:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1537,'AAALyn//+6w='),(4,'2010-09-06 16:23:32','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- fixed some typos\n- rebased to current master',1537,'AAALyn//+7U='),(4,'2010-09-06 16:22:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',1537,'AAALyn//+7Y='),(4,'2010-09-06 15:11:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1538,'AAALyn//++A='),(4,'2010-09-06 15:11:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1538,'AAALyn//++E='),(2,'2010-09-06 16:45:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1539,'AAALyn//+6g='),(2,'2010-09-06 16:45:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1539,'AAALyn//+6k='),(2,'2010-09-06 16:44:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1540,'AAALyn//+6o='),(2,'2010-09-06 16:44:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. Should save time on the tests.',1540,'AAALyn//+6s='),(4,'2010-09-07 07:37:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1541,'AAALy3///9s='),(4,'2010-09-07 07:37:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1541,'AAALy3///9w='),(74,'2010-09-06 18:47:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nYep, much more reliable for me now. Some sync tests are still red but I think this has to do with the usage of different repository instances.',1541,'AAALyn//+58='),(1,'2010-09-06 17:12:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1542,'AAALyn//+6E='),(1,'2010-09-06 17:12:19','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1542,'AAALyn//+6M='),(1,'2010-09-06 17:12:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1543,'AAALyn//+6I='),(1,'2010-09-06 17:12:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1543,'AAALyn//+6Q='),(1,'2010-09-06 19:28:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1544,'AAALyn//+50='),(1,'2010-09-06 19:28:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1544,'AAALyn//+5s='),(1,'2010-09-06 19:28:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1545,'AAALyn//+54='),(1,'2010-09-06 19:28:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1545,'AAALyn//+5w='),(6,'2010-09-09 09:24:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1546,'AAALy3///2E='),(6,'2010-09-09 09:24:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis makes sense.\n\nHowever, the checkbox does not work. If I haven\'t checked it I still see the local changes in the workspace model. I have opened bug 324826 for this.',1546,'AAALy3///2I='),(6,'2010-09-09 09:18:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',1546,'AAALy3///2U='),(49,'2010-09-08 23:30:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1546,'AAALy3///3E='),(2,'2010-09-07 02:39:51','Patch Set 1:\n\nrebase and resolve conflicts',1547,'AAALy3///+A='),(4,'2010-09-07 23:21:54','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1547,'AAALy3///8A='),(2,'2010-09-17 19:08:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1547,'AAALy3///lE='),(2,'2010-09-17 19:08:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks reasonable.',1547,'AAALy3///lI='),(5,'2010-09-16 21:12:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1547,'AAALy3///pE='),(1,'2010-09-12 18:45:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',1547,'AAALy3///vk='),(1,'2010-09-10 22:09:40','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nWill upload replacement soon.',1547,'AAALy3///wk='),(4,'2010-09-06 23:13:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1548,'AAALy3///+w='),(2,'2010-09-17 19:10:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1548,'AAALy3///k8='),(2,'2010-09-17 19:10:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1548,'AAALy3///lA='),(5,'2010-09-16 21:18:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1548,'AAALy3///pA='),(1,'2010-09-12 18:45:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',1548,'AAALy3///vs='),(6,'2010-09-07 10:09:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1549,'AAALy3///9c='),(6,'2010-09-07 10:09:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1549,'AAALy3///9g='),(1,'2010-09-09 01:42:46','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nMinor nits.  I think the core FetchCommand is ready.',1550,'AAALy3///2w='),(2,'2010-09-08 20:17:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',1550,'AAALy3///4M='),(1,'2010-09-08 04:58:02','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(8 inline comments)\n\n',1550,'AAALy3///7Q='),(2,'2010-09-07 14:59:39','Patch Set 1:\n\nI still need some tests written but this should be enough for a review...',1550,'AAALy3///8Y='),(NULL,'2010-09-17 18:31:21','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1550,'AAALy3///l0='),(2,'2010-09-17 18:33:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1550,'AAALy3///lo='),(2,'2010-09-17 18:33:44','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nPushing to master.',1550,'AAALy3///ls='),(2,'2010-09-17 18:33:13','Uploaded patch set 7.',1550,'AAALy3///lw='),(NULL,'2010-09-17 14:56:29','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1550,'AAALy3///mU='),(2,'2010-09-17 14:56:29','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s do it now that 0.10 is open for fun.',1550,'AAALy3///mY='),(NULL,'2010-09-16 14:57:26','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1550,'AAALy3///pI='),(1,'2010-09-16 14:57:26','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1550,'AAALy3///pM='),(2,'2010-09-13 14:11:44','Uploaded patch set 6.',1550,'AAALy3///uI='),(1,'2010-09-10 18:16:18','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1550,'AAALy3///xw='),(2,'2010-09-09 13:44:15','Uploaded patch set 5.',1550,'AAALy3///zc='),(2,'2010-09-09 13:39:23','Uploaded patch set 4.',1550,'AAALy3///zg='),(2,'2010-09-09 13:38:31','Uploaded patch set 3.',1550,'AAALy3///zk='),(2,'2010-09-08 00:14:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1551,'AAALy3///74='),(2,'2010-09-08 00:14:07','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good to me.',1551,'AAALy3///78='),(4,'2010-09-07 23:10:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',1551,'AAALy3///8E='),(2,'2010-09-08 20:27:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1552,'AAALy3///4A='),(2,'2010-09-08 20:27:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1552,'AAALy3///4E='),(4,'2010-09-08 13:02:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1552,'AAALy3///5o='),(5,'2010-09-08 06:09:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1552,'AAALy3///6Y='),(46,'2010-09-08 07:45:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1553,'AAALy3///6Q='),(46,'2010-09-08 07:45:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Matthias.',1553,'AAALy3///6U='),(4,'2010-09-09 12:29:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1554,'AAALy3///04='),(4,'2010-09-09 11:50:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1554,'AAALy3///1g='),(1,'2010-09-08 05:37:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1554,'AAALy3///6c='),(4,'2010-09-09 12:29:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1555,'AAALy3///08='),(4,'2010-09-09 12:28:03','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1555,'AAALy3///1E='),(1,'2010-09-08 05:29:40','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI think this is ready to go now.  The cache is simple and pretty low cost to put in front of pack lookup.',1555,'AAALy3///64='),(1,'2010-09-08 05:28:32','Uploaded patch set 3.',1555,'AAALy3///68='),(1,'2010-09-08 05:24:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1555,'AAALy3///7I='),(4,'2010-09-09 12:29:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1556,'AAALy3///1A='),(4,'2010-09-09 12:00:58','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1556,'AAALy3///1c='),(1,'2010-09-08 05:33:49','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI think we want this in 0.9 because otherwise large objects stored as deltas in packs can be incredibly slow to access, especially if they are accessed often.\n\nThe downside is, when checking out a large object into the local working directory, we\'re also deflating it as a loose object just in case we need to re-read that content in the future.  Large binary objects are probably less frequently modified by the user in the working directory, so we\'re probably less likely to actually need this faster access.  So we might be doing too much work in some cases.\n\nBut for a gerrit code review server serving large binary files, this really helps, because users of the server tend to access the same objects several times before the next git gc runs.',1556,'AAALy3///60='),(1,'2010-09-08 03:36:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',1556,'AAALy3///70='),(1,'2010-09-08 05:28:32','Uploaded patch set 4.',1556,'AAALy3///7A='),(1,'2010-09-08 05:24:20','Uploaded patch set 3.',1556,'AAALy3///7M='),(1,'2010-09-09 01:44:50','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhat do you suggest?  Have the command take an OutputStream and a Charset (the latter which defaults to UTF-8) and format the shown data to the stream?\n\nThis is useful only if you want to just blindly display the output of `git show` with almost no additional coloring or other formatting.  If you want to have a more complex formatting, you probably will just want to drop down to parsing the object, and going through its fields to format it as desired.  Which is 99% of this class.',1557,'AAALy3///2s='),(5,'2010-09-08 13:44:43','Patch Set 1:\n\nShouldn\'t it in the end not be a command in our org.eclipse.jgit.api package? I am sure that people outside jgit would like to have a git-show implementation which is re-useable and has a a clean, type-safe interface. Code in the pgm package is not reuseable (it\'s not visible e.g. to egit), accpets all parameters as Strings and dumps return values to stdout.\nIt\'s not much - just moving that part of the code which does the real work into a comamnd.',1557,'AAALy3///5Q='),(1,'2010-09-08 05:37:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nI hacked this up to help me debug the large-delta topic.  I\'m not happy with the amount of code duplication we now have, but on the other hand I\'d love to see `jgit show` actually work in 0.9.',1557,'AAALy3///6g='),(6,'2010-09-09 12:42:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1558,'AAALy3///0o='),(6,'2010-09-09 12:42:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1558,'AAALy3///0s='),(5,'2010-09-08 19:28:18','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nFinally I added test for PlotCommitList to test positioning on lanes. I added some tests which succeed. But there are still\nsome bugs in bug:300282 which have to checked.',1559,'AAALy3///4c='),(5,'2010-09-08 19:25:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',1559,'AAALy3///4g='),(6,'2010-09-08 13:59:20','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\nThe algorithm is improved but there are still situations which are not handled correctly. I attached two example repos to bug 300282.\n\nWe could nevertheless submit this change as it is an improvement.',1559,'AAALy3///5I='),(5,'2010-09-08 13:32:00','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1559,'AAALy3///5U='),(4,'2010-09-08 10:52:44','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- improved commit message',1559,'AAALy3///6I='),(4,'2010-09-08 10:51:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',1559,'AAALy3///6M='),(5,'2010-09-10 16:20:22','Patch Set 4: Abandoned\n\nthis change has been replaced by #1580. This was done because\nthis change should go in stable-0.9.',1559,'AAALy3///yE='),(5,'2010-09-10 16:17:12','Uploaded patch set 4.',1559,'AAALy3///yI='),(4,'2010-09-08 20:30:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1560,'AAALy3///30='),(4,'2010-09-08 20:30:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed copy&paste error with tooltips',1560,'AAALy3///34='),(4,'2010-09-08 20:29:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',1560,'AAALy3///38='),(49,'2010-09-08 23:23:06','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nReal fix for bug 324705 is here:\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/1569',1561,'AAALy3///3M='),(49,'2010-09-08 20:57:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1561,'AAALy3///3o='),(4,'2010-09-09 12:43:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1562,'AAALy3///0c='),(4,'2010-09-09 12:43:08','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',1562,'AAALy3///0g='),(4,'2010-09-09 12:42:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',1562,'AAALy3///0k='),(46,'2010-09-09 07:18:11','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1562,'AAALy3///2c='),(46,'2010-09-09 07:16:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',1562,'AAALy3///2o='),(46,'2010-09-09 07:18:11','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1562,'AAALy3///2Y='),(4,'2010-09-08 15:04:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1562,'AAALy3///40='),(74,'2010-09-08 16:46:31','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1562,'AAALy3///4k='),(46,'2010-09-09 10:26:32','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis behavior is totally unrelated to this change. We already have bug 324183 for it.',1563,'AAALy3///14='),(4,'2010-09-08 14:59:58','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhen a remote tracking branch is checked out the HEAD symbolic ref isn\'t shown at all, but the file HEAD still exists in the .git folder.\n\nIs that intended ?',1563,'AAALy3///44='),(2,'2010-09-30 14:49:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1563,'AAALy3///PE='),(2,'2010-09-30 14:49:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI\'m OK with this.',1563,'AAALy3///PI='),(46,'2010-09-30 13:32:00','Patch Set 1:\n\nMatthias, do you see an issue with this or not?',1563,'AAALy3///Qs='),(4,'2010-09-08 14:44:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1564,'AAALy3///48='),(4,'2010-09-08 14:44:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- improved commit message\n\nthanks Jens,finally we have working core tests :-)',1564,'AAALy3///5A='),(4,'2010-09-08 14:43:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1564,'AAALy3///5E='),(2,'2010-09-08 20:31:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1565,'AAALy3///3s='),(2,'2010-09-08 20:31:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1565,'AAALy3///3w='),(4,'2010-09-09 11:36:46','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nmissed to add changeid so abandoning in favor of the new proposal',1566,'AAALy3///1k='),(74,'2010-09-08 21:22:13','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1566,'AAALy3///3g='),(2,'2010-09-08 22:01:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1567,'AAALy3///3c='),(2,'2010-09-08 22:01:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1567,'AAALy3///3Y='),(2,'2010-09-08 22:02:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1568,'AAALy3///3Q='),(2,'2010-09-08 22:02:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1568,'AAALy3///3U='),(6,'2010-09-09 09:39:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1569,'AAALy3///18='),(6,'2010-09-09 09:39:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nYes, that\'s true!',1569,'AAALy3///2A='),(49,'2010-09-08 23:30:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1569,'AAALy3///3I='),(4,'2010-09-09 09:19:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1570,'AAALy3///2M='),(4,'2010-09-09 09:19:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1570,'AAALy3///2Q='),(6,'2010-09-09 13:01:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1571,'AAALy3///0A='),(6,'2010-09-09 13:03:08','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1571,'AAALy3///z0='),(6,'2010-09-09 13:02:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',1571,'AAALy3///z4='),(NULL,'2010-09-09 13:01:36','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1571,'AAALy3///z8='),(6,'2010-09-09 13:03:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1571,'AAALy3///zw='),(2,'2010-09-09 13:12:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1572,'AAALy3///zo='),(2,'2010-09-09 13:12:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1572,'AAALy3///zs='),(49,'2010-09-15 17:05:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1573,'AAALy3///qk='),(49,'2010-09-15 17:05:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1573,'AAALy3///qo='),(49,'2010-09-15 17:04:43','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed minor withe space issue in GitRepositoriesViewRemoteHandlingTest:109',1573,'AAALy3///qs='),(49,'2010-09-15 17:04:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1573,'AAALy3///qw='),(4,'2010-09-18 22:20:54','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',1574,'AAALy3///j0='),(4,'2010-09-18 22:06:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',1574,'AAALy3///j4='),(4,'2010-09-18 22:20:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1574,'AAALy3///jw='),(84,'2010-09-10 20:04:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1575,'AAALy3///xc='),(84,'2010-09-10 19:59:04','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1575,'AAALy3///xg='),(1,'2010-09-10 21:36:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1575,'AAALy3///xQ='),(1,'2010-09-10 21:36:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1575,'AAALy3///xU='),(1,'2010-09-10 04:01:30','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1575,'AAALy3///yk='),(4,'2010-09-09 23:35:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1576,'AAALy3///y4='),(4,'2010-09-09 23:35:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1576,'AAALy3///y8='),(4,'2010-09-09 22:16:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',1576,'AAALy3///zA='),(46,'2010-09-10 12:06:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1577,'AAALy3///yU='),(46,'2010-09-10 12:06:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks so much for hunting this down Jens.',1577,'AAALy3///yY='),(2,'2010-09-17 18:55:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1578,'AAALy3///lc='),(2,'2010-09-17 18:55:06','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1578,'AAALy3///lg='),(2,'2010-09-17 18:54:00','Uploaded patch set 4.',1578,'AAALy3///lk='),(49,'2010-09-13 20:03:52','Uploaded patch set 3.',1578,'AAALy3///tI='),(49,'2010-09-13 20:03:35','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1578,'AAALy3///tM='),(6,'2010-09-13 12:40:03','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nPlease have a look at the inline comments.',1578,'AAALy3///ug='),(49,'2010-09-10 12:46:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1578,'AAALy3///yQ='),(4,'2010-09-18 21:49:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1579,'AAALy3///j8='),(4,'2010-09-18 21:49:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',1579,'AAALy3///kA='),(4,'2010-09-18 21:48:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',1579,'AAALy3///kE='),(5,'2010-09-13 23:38:31','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nTopology of the graphs looks better now. I also added a complicated test which replays part of the history of the egit repo',1580,'AAALy3///s0='),(5,'2010-09-13 23:35:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',1580,'AAALy3///s4='),(4,'2010-09-14 16:21:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1580,'AAALy3///sg='),(4,'2010-09-14 16:21:47','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- improved formatting of comments\n- fixed potential NPE',1580,'AAALy3///sk='),(4,'2010-09-14 16:20:45','Uploaded patch set 5.',1580,'AAALy3///so='),(5,'2010-09-14 15:41:07','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI fixed some bugs for layouting complicated histories. Now I am quite happy with it. We have good tests, I tried it with linux and git-git histories and at least it doesn\'t show wrong topologies.\nWhen looking at big, complicated repos (like linux) our history is using substantially more lanes than e.g. gitk. There are some tricks in gitk which don\'t have in yet - but at least the display is correct now.',1580,'AAALy3///ss='),(5,'2010-09-14 15:36:23','Uploaded patch set 4.',1580,'AAALy3///sw='),(5,'2010-09-13 09:13:36','Patch Set 2:\n\nRegarding the wrong display of the EGit repository history which Matthias detected: I can see that the JGit internal history viewer Glog does show the history correct. I guess it is something in the EGit rendering. Or JGit reports inconsistent data which Glog doesn\'t disturb but which let EGit present things wrongly.',1580,'AAALy3///u8='),(5,'2010-09-13 08:47:35','Patch Set 2:\n\nRegarding the NPE Matthias detected: this is also visible\ncurrent nightly build (without this proposal). I opened\nbug:325081 for it and will discuss with Stefan.',1580,'AAALy3///vA='),(5,'2010-09-12 19:22:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',1580,'AAALy3///vQ='),(5,'2010-09-12 19:22:24','Patch Set 1: (7 inline comments)\n\nworked  on the comments of Shawn.\n\nBut the problems reported by Matthias when viewing the\negit repo are still open. I\'ll work on them now.',1580,'AAALy3///vU='),(4,'2010-09-10 22:35:03','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI tried with current egit repo and this doesn\'t yet work properly:\n- clone egit repository using egit and import projects\n- open history view in egit (using current egit stable-0.9 and this changes jgit version)\n- compare resulting graph in history view against the graph displayed by gitk\n-> the current algorithm uses not enough lanes so that the displayed graph edges are far from being correctly displayed\n\nclick the show all branches toggle button:\n-> NPE is thrown :\n\n!ENTRY org.eclipse.ui 4 0 2010-09-11 00:34:09.786\n!MESSAGE Unhandled event loop exception\n!STACK 0\njava.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage.inputSet(GitHistoryPage.java:1070)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage.refresh(GitHistoryPage.java:959)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage$3.run(GitHistoryPage.java:383)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.Action.runWithEvent(Action.java:498)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem.handleWidgetSelection(ActionContributionItem.java:584)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem.access$2(ActionContributionItem.java:501)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem$6.handleEvent(ActionContributionItem.java:452)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.EventTable.sendEvent(EventTable.java:84)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.sendEvent(Display.java:3776)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1367)',1580,'AAALy3///wg='),(1,'2010-09-10 22:05:32','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(8 inline comments)\n\n',1580,'AAALy3///ws='),(4,'2010-09-23 22:26:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1581,'AAALy3///aA='),(4,'2010-09-23 22:26:32','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1581,'AAALy3///aE='),(4,'2010-09-23 22:25:17','Uploaded patch set 3.',1581,'AAALy3///aI='),(44,'2010-09-10 17:02:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',1581,'AAALy3///x0='),(84,'2010-09-10 20:04:44','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nI hate you, Gerrit.',1582,'AAALy3///xY='),(1,'2010-09-11 05:16:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1583,'AAALy3///wc='),(1,'2010-09-11 05:16:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1583,'AAALy3///wY='),(1,'2010-09-11 05:18:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1584,'AAALy3///wQ='),(1,'2010-09-11 05:18:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1584,'AAALy3///wU='),(2,'2010-09-21 20:43:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1585,'AAALy3///fA='),(2,'2010-09-21 20:43:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks ok.',1585,'AAALy3///fE='),(1,'2010-09-21 01:19:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',1585,'AAALy3///gA='),(5,'2010-09-16 22:16:57','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1585,'AAALy3///oc='),(1,'2010-09-16 22:51:12','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1585,'AAALy3///oM='),(1,'2010-09-12 18:47:39','Patch Set 1:\n\nI think this change permits us to stop having the comparator in the RawText instance, which fixes the issue you noticed during the earlier refactoring that added the comparator type.\n\nI wrote this while I wasn\'t the most lucid.  So it really needs a lot of review before we include it.  :-)',1585,'AAALy3///vc='),(2,'2010-09-21 18:49:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1586,'AAALy3///fI='),(2,'2010-09-21 18:49:48','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1586,'AAALy3///fM='),(1,'2010-09-21 01:19:41','Uploaded patch set 3.',1586,'AAALy3///gE='),(1,'2010-09-16 02:01:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1586,'AAALy3///p0='),(8,'2010-09-13 17:39:29','Patch Set 1:\n\nSeems you should back this optimization up using some hard numbers on a random sample of commons repositories.',1586,'AAALy3///ts='),(1,'2010-09-12 18:51:06','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'m not fully sold on this change yet.  In theory it seems like this will be faster to handle the common headers on files like the copyright notice.  But I\'m not fully convinced that it correctly updates the Edit with new begin/end positions for every case.\n\nLike the hash code change, I wrote this while I wasn\'t the most lucid, so its probably full of even more bugs than my usual quota.  :-)',1586,'AAALy3///vY='),(5,'2010-09-16 08:38:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nIncorporated Shawns comments',1587,'AAALy3///pk='),(5,'2010-09-16 08:37:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',1587,'AAALy3///po='),(1,'2010-09-16 14:55:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1587,'AAALy3///pQ='),(1,'2010-09-16 14:55:53','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1587,'AAALy3///pU='),(1,'2010-09-16 01:08:50','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1587,'AAALy3///qA='),(5,'2010-09-13 13:15:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1588,'AAALy3///uc='),(4,'2010-09-13 13:50:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1588,'AAALy3///uM='),(4,'2010-09-13 13:50:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1588,'AAALy3///uQ='),(44,'2010-09-13 13:49:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1588,'AAALy3///uU='),(4,'2010-09-18 21:35:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1589,'AAALy3///kI='),(4,'2010-09-18 21:35:37','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',1589,'AAALy3///kM='),(4,'2010-09-18 21:29:47','Uploaded patch set 5.',1589,'AAALy3///kQ='),(44,'2010-09-13 16:39:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',1589,'AAALy3///t0='),(44,'2010-09-13 16:40:44','Uploaded patch set 4.',1589,'AAALy3///tw='),(44,'2010-09-13 14:26:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',1589,'AAALy3///uE='),(2,'2010-09-13 15:23:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1590,'AAALy3///t4='),(2,'2010-09-13 15:23:06','Patch Set 1:\n\nLooks good.',1590,'AAALy3///t8='),(2,'2010-09-13 15:23:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1590,'AAALy3///uA='),(2,'2010-09-17 18:58:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1591,'AAALy3///lQ='),(2,'2010-09-17 18:58:54','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems reasonable.',1591,'AAALy3///lU='),(2,'2010-09-17 18:57:25','Uploaded patch set 4.',1591,'AAALy3///lY='),(49,'2010-09-14 20:26:16','Uploaded patch set 3.',1591,'AAALy3///sQ='),(49,'2010-09-14 19:46:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',1591,'AAALy3///sU='),(4,'2010-09-14 16:46:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1592,'AAALy3///sc='),(4,'2010-09-14 16:46:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1592,'AAALy3///sY='),(49,'2010-09-14 23:45:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1593,'AAALy3///sA='),(49,'2010-09-14 23:45:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1593,'AAALy3///sE='),(4,'2010-09-14 22:38:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1593,'AAALy3///sI='),(2,'2010-09-15 03:07:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1594,'AAALy3///r0='),(2,'2010-09-15 03:07:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1594,'AAALy3///r4='),(4,'2010-09-15 00:57:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1594,'AAALy3///r8='),(4,'2010-09-14 22:38:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nRemoving trailing whitespace from html generated from wiki content and checking the result is a bit too expensive to do. Looking at the resulting Eclipse help this looks ok to me.',1594,'AAALy3///sM='),(49,'2010-09-17 19:17:56','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased, there were no conflicts.',1595,'AAALy3///k0='),(49,'2010-09-17 19:17:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',1595,'AAALy3///k4='),(2,'2010-09-17 19:19:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1595,'AAALy3///ks='),(2,'2010-09-17 19:18:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Dariusz.',1595,'AAALy3///kw='),(2,'2010-09-17 19:01:00','Patch Set 1:\n\nRebase your changes and resolve conflicts please.',1595,'AAALy3///lM='),(4,'2010-09-15 07:27:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1596,'AAALy3///rs='),(4,'2010-09-15 07:27:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1596,'AAALy3///rw='),(6,'2010-09-15 12:05:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1597,'AAALy3///rg='),(6,'2010-09-15 12:05:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1597,'AAALy3///rk='),(6,'2010-09-15 12:05:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1598,'AAALy3///rc='),(49,'2010-09-15 09:36:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nShouldn\'t be also upgraded tycho-version in pom.xml and version in .eclipse_iplog ?',1598,'AAALy3///ro='),(6,'2010-09-15 12:05:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1598,'AAALy3///rY='),(2,'2010-09-15 19:56:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1599,'AAALy3///qU='),(2,'2010-09-15 19:56:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, from the looks of it we\'ll need a 0.9.3 now :/',1599,'AAALy3///qY='),(2,'2010-09-15 19:57:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1600,'AAALy3///qM='),(2,'2010-09-15 19:57:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWe\'ll need a 0.9.3 after this :/',1600,'AAALy3///qQ='),(6,'2010-09-17 13:32:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1601,'AAALy3///nU='),(6,'2010-09-17 13:32:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks, Shawn!\nI would think that it is sufficient to fix this in master because there is the workaround to manually set the filemode property to false later on.',1601,'AAALy3///nY='),(1,'2010-09-15 16:18:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThis seems fine to me.  But do we want it in 0.9?',1601,'AAALy3///q0='),(2,'2010-09-15 16:01:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1602,'AAALy3///rA='),(2,'2010-09-15 16:01:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSo the question is, do we want to retag 0.9.1? We haven\'t shipped 0.9.1 yet and I\'d like to see this in before we post qualify our builds for >0.9.1',1602,'AAALy3///rE='),(1,'2010-09-15 16:00:23','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nYes, this does fix the clone bug.  :-)',1602,'AAALy3///rI='),(2,'2010-09-15 15:50:47','Patch Set 2:\n\nI would like to see this in 0.9',1602,'AAALy3///rM='),(1,'2010-09-15 15:42:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1602,'AAALy3///rQ='),(2,'2010-09-15 16:02:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1603,'AAALy3///q4='),(2,'2010-09-15 16:02:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple fix.',1603,'AAALy3///q8='),(4,'2010-09-16 22:07:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1604,'AAALy3///os='),(4,'2010-09-16 22:07:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1604,'AAALy3///ow='),(4,'2010-09-16 22:08:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1605,'AAALy3///ok='),(4,'2010-09-16 22:08:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1605,'AAALy3///oo='),(4,'2010-09-16 23:36:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1606,'AAALy3///oE='),(4,'2010-09-16 23:36:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1606,'AAALy3///oI='),(4,'2010-09-16 23:37:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1607,'AAALy3///n8='),(4,'2010-09-16 23:37:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1607,'AAALy3///oA='),(1,'2010-09-17 00:47:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1608,'AAALy3///n0='),(1,'2010-09-17 00:47:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1608,'AAALy3///n4='),(1,'2010-09-17 00:47:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1609,'AAALy3///ns='),(1,'2010-09-17 00:47:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1609,'AAALy3///nw='),(2,'2010-10-04 19:05:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1610,'AAALy3///K4='),(2,'2010-10-04 19:05:34','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1610,'AAALy3///K8='),(2,'2010-10-04 19:05:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',1610,'AAALy3///LA='),(1,'2010-09-17 14:20:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1610,'AAALy3///nA='),(1,'2010-09-17 01:05:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1611,'AAALy3///nc='),(1,'2010-09-17 01:05:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1611,'AAALy3///nk='),(1,'2010-09-17 01:05:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1612,'AAALy3///ng='),(1,'2010-09-17 01:05:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1612,'AAALy3///no='),(6,'2010-09-17 14:27:55','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1613,'AAALy3///m0='),(6,'2010-09-17 14:25:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',1613,'AAALy3///m8='),(1,'2010-09-17 14:28:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1613,'AAALy3///ms='),(1,'2010-09-17 14:28:39','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1613,'AAALy3///mw='),(1,'2010-09-17 14:12:47','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1613,'AAALy3///nI='),(1,'2010-09-20 21:09:46','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(19 inline comments)\n\nNice start for attributes, I\'m glad someone is working on it.',1614,'AAALy3///go='),(51,'2010-09-17 15:18:19','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis is a draft: javadocs are missing at all.\n\nIt turned out, that .gitattributes form a hierarchy, like .gitignores, so I didn\'t implement a Config-like solution. What is rather unpleasant is that .git/info/attributes has highest precedence. So it\'s a kind of stack with a fixed top-level element. This was the motivation to skip hierarchy from Attributes class at all and introduce AttributesQuery instead.\n\nI think larger .gitattributes files at multiple levels of the tree may have significant impact on performance (what I\'ve in mind are e.g. autogenerated .gitattributes files from svn:eol-style/svn:mime-type properties). It\'s just a guess, but FileNameMatcher seems to be the critical part. Hence, in addition to these patches it make sense to refactor fnmatch-API to provide another, much simpler matcher, if the pattern is actually no pattern, but a plain path.',1614,'AAALy3///mQ='),(1,'2010-09-20 21:19:54','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1615,'AAALy3///gg='),(51,'2010-09-17 15:23:33','Patch Set 1:\n\nI don\'t really like the current implementation. I\'ve tried to keep things similar to the Ignore-functionality. WorkingTreeIterator#decorateAttributesQuery is rather annoying. Alternatively there could be a stack (similar to C Git) with a fixed top-level element .git/info/attributes. The stack could be initialized by FileTreeIterator and pushes could happen in createSubtreeIterator(). For the pops we would need some new AbstractTreeIterator.dispose() method.',1615,'AAALy3///mM='),(44,'2010-09-17 15:51:56','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\npush accident',1616,'AAALy3///mI='),(44,'2010-09-17 15:52:40','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\npush accident',1617,'AAALy3///mA='),(44,'2010-09-17 15:52:21','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\npush accident',1618,'AAALy3///mE='),(1,'2010-09-17 16:18:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1619,'AAALy3///l4='),(1,'2010-09-17 16:18:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1619,'AAALy3///l8='),(2,'2010-09-17 20:03:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1620,'AAALy3///kk='),(2,'2010-09-17 20:03:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nOoops :)',1620,'AAALy3///ko='),(2,'2010-09-17 20:07:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1621,'AAALy3///kc='),(2,'2010-09-17 20:07:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks for the catch, this was missed in my workspace.',1621,'AAALy3///kg='),(2,'2010-09-17 20:08:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1622,'AAALy3///kU='),(2,'2010-09-17 20:08:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. We should find a good way to automate this somehow to prevent mistakes like this...',1622,'AAALy3///kY='),(2,'2010-09-20 15:51:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1623,'AAALy3///h4='),(2,'2010-09-20 15:51:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI would like to eventually see us do some UI testing in this area.',1623,'AAALy3///h8='),(2,'2010-09-20 15:50:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',1623,'AAALy3///iA='),(49,'2010-09-19 12:02:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',1624,'AAALy3///jk='),(49,'2010-09-18 23:55:12','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThere are some logical issues refactoring.',1624,'AAALy3///js='),(2,'2010-09-27 17:10:46','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1624,'AAALy3///T0='),(2,'2010-09-27 16:12:05','Uploaded patch set 4.',1624,'AAALy3///T4='),(2,'2010-09-27 16:09:08','Uploaded patch set 3.',1624,'AAALy3///T8='),(2,'2010-09-27 17:10:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1624,'AAALy3///Tw='),(49,'2010-09-20 14:33:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',1625,'AAALy3///ic='),(2,'2010-09-20 14:22:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nCan you rebase and resolve conflicts?',1625,'AAALy3///io='),(2,'2010-09-20 14:35:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1625,'AAALy3///iQ='),(NULL,'2010-09-20 14:22:21','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1625,'AAALy3///is='),(2,'2010-09-20 14:35:30','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1625,'AAALy3///iU='),(2,'2010-09-20 14:22:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1625,'AAALy3///iw='),(49,'2010-09-20 14:33:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nStrange CGit didn\'t show any conflicts.\n\nRebased.',1625,'AAALy3///iY='),(49,'2010-09-19 12:04:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1626,'AAALy3///jc='),(49,'2010-09-19 12:04:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1626,'AAALy3///jg='),(4,'2010-09-19 00:19:04','Uploaded patch set 2.',1627,'AAALy3///jo='),(49,'2010-09-19 12:06:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1627,'AAALy3///jQ='),(49,'2010-09-19 12:06:26','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1627,'AAALy3///jU='),(49,'2010-09-19 12:06:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1627,'AAALy3///jY='),(2,'2010-09-19 19:18:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1628,'AAALy3///jI='),(2,'2010-09-19 19:18:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1628,'AAALy3///jM='),(5,'2010-09-22 20:57:57','Patch Set 3: (2 inline comments)\n\nlooks good to me if the last comment about not properly updated modifiedFiles list is handled.',1629,'AAALy3///bU='),(86,'2010-09-22 17:55:55','Patch Set 3: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1629,'AAALy3///bw='),(86,'2010-09-22 06:29:52','Patch Set 3:\n\nIn fact no logic changes since yesterday, just some comment cleanup.\nSeems to be working as expected with gerrit, the !inCore logic should stay unaffected, let me know if I am missing anything else.',1629,'AAALy3///c8='),(5,'2010-09-22 17:14:55','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\n',1629,'AAALy3///cE='),(86,'2010-09-22 06:25:11','Uploaded patch set 3.',1629,'AAALy3///dA='),(86,'2010-09-22 02:34:03','Patch Set 2:\n\nI actually thought about it before and came to a conclusion that we do want it as a parameter. What I am really missing and would like to see is more graphical git tools that allow us to drag-n-drop/cherry-pick or merge commits between branches. Presence of working folder is irrelevant, target branch during that merge doesn\'t have to be the one that is currently checked out. Even in normal c git implementation it\'s really annoying we have to checkout a branch every time we want to manipulate it.',1629,'AAALy3///dM='),(1,'2010-09-21 23:03:55','Patch Set 2:\n\nTo implement the recursive part of merge recursive (which handles cases where there are multiple merge bases) we need to run in-core, even though we have a working directory.\n\nSo I wouldn\'t assume incore == isbare.',1629,'AAALy3///eE='),(5,'2010-09-21 23:02:12','Patch Set 2:\n\nWhen I see your new commit message I come to the idea: is there a use-case for an extra parameter telling \"ignore the working-dir\" ... or is it always like that we use the incore on bare repos and the non-incore on non-bare?\nThen we could even get rid of the \"incore\" parameter and use \"isbare()\" instead.',1629,'AAALy3///eI='),(5,'2010-09-21 07:33:56','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1629,'AAALy3///f0='),(5,'2010-09-21 07:32:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWe spent a lot of time in writing the ResolveMerger and also add ton\'s of unit tests for that algorithm. Therefore I am\nhoping that we can reuse the ResolveMerger instead of duplicating the code. I looked at the proposal and at least from my investigation it is a copy of ResolveMerge where all references to WorkDir are removed, right?\n\nSo, what do you think, wouldn\'t it be possible to just add some parameter to ResolveMerger constructors ignore the workdir? The mainloop of the merge algorithm would get one additional if - performance should not be a problem here.',1629,'AAALy3///f8='),(5,'2010-09-21 11:31:10','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nSuper. I am waiting for your proposal. I don\'t count the number of if\'s, but we have to take care that the main loop inside merge doesn\'t degrade performance-wise. If we can\'t achieve this copying the code would be ok.',1629,'AAALy3///fo='),(86,'2010-09-21 16:40:42','Patch Set 2:\n\nI coded it yesterday night and haven\'t tested it at all, just wanted to get it to you early to see if you like the general direction it is going to.',1629,'AAALy3///fQ='),(86,'2010-09-21 16:39:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',1629,'AAALy3///fU='),(86,'2010-09-21 07:49:13','Patch Set 1:\n\nYeah, I thought about the same thing. Originally I didn\'t want to break existing functionality, so I decided to branch, but in the end the diff indeed seems to be not enough to justify a separate class or even hierarchy of classed like we discussed earlier today. I do expect it to get a little ugly, I am afraid I\'ll have to add more than one \"if\". Anyway, I\'ll take a look and try to submit a new revised patch soon.',1629,'AAALy3///fw='),(1,'2010-09-21 14:14:09','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1629,'AAALy3///fY='),(1,'2010-09-20 22:49:43','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1629,'AAALy3///gQ='),(5,'2010-09-27 08:46:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1629,'AAALy3///Us='),(5,'2010-09-26 22:47:21','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1629,'AAALy3///Uw='),(86,'2010-09-26 17:17:23','Patch Set 5:\n\nLets do it in the next one. I\'ll look at how the current ones ar implemented and try to come up with some test cases to cover inCore resolve.',1629,'AAALy3///WM='),(5,'2010-09-25 22:11:46','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nOk good for me know. Could be merged now.\n\nOne leftover we have. Your modifications are still not covered by unit tests. Since we didn\'t copied the class but only enhanced a already well tested class that\'s not as bad as with a copy. But of course we need also tests for incore mergers. Tests which check whether the merge succeeds in bare repos, whether we correctly write merged content although we don\'t have our standard file-system-location to persist new content, and so on.\n\nYou decide - in this commit or in a follow up?',1629,'AAALy3///WY='),(86,'2010-09-24 20:56:19','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nNo worries, I am all for dictatorship and enforcing very strict rules when it comes to code style :) I was using Eclipse, but yesterday decided to give IDEA a try, that caused the incorrect indentation. Hope everything looks good now.',1629,'AAALy3///X8='),(86,'2010-09-24 18:02:02','Uploaded patch set 5.',1629,'AAALy3///YE='),(5,'2010-09-24 13:13:27','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nlooks good, only some style nits. Sorry Dmitry for being so picky. If you use Eclipse and our checked in project settings regarding auto-save actions etc. you don\'t have to care anymore about such problems (e.g. trailing whitespaces)',1629,'AAALy3///Yg='),(86,'2010-09-24 06:55:04','Uploaded patch set 4.',1629,'AAALy3///Zs='),(2,'2010-09-20 14:17:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1630,'AAALy3///i8='),(2,'2010-09-20 14:17:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1630,'AAALy3///jA='),(2,'2010-09-20 15:34:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1631,'AAALy3///iE='),(2,'2010-09-20 15:34:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSure.',1631,'AAALy3///iI='),(2,'2010-09-20 15:34:04','Uploaded patch set 2.',1631,'AAALy3///iM='),(2,'2010-09-20 14:22:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1632,'AAALy3///ig='),(2,'2010-09-20 14:22:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1632,'AAALy3///ik='),(2,'2010-09-20 14:19:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1633,'AAALy3///i0='),(2,'2010-09-20 14:19:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1633,'AAALy3///i4='),(4,'2010-09-23 23:10:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1634,'AAALy3///Z0='),(4,'2010-09-23 23:10:11','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',1634,'AAALy3///Z4='),(4,'2010-09-23 23:04:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1634,'AAALy3///Z8='),(2,'2010-09-21 14:08:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1635,'AAALy3///fg='),(2,'2010-09-21 14:08:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks reasonable.',1635,'AAALy3///fk='),(46,'2010-09-30 14:19:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1636,'AAALy3///Pk='),(46,'2010-09-30 14:19:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1636,'AAALy3///Po='),(46,'2010-09-30 14:00:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1637,'AAALy3///QE='),(46,'2010-09-30 14:00:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Jens.',1637,'AAALy3///QI='),(2,'2010-09-22 13:03:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1638,'AAALy3///cg='),(2,'2010-09-22 13:03:57','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1638,'AAALy3///ck='),(2,'2010-09-21 23:59:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1638,'AAALy3///d8='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:11:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',1638,'AAALy3///dY='),(5,'2010-09-21 22:56:03','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1638,'AAALy3///eM='),(2,'2010-09-22 20:55:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1639,'AAALy3///bg='),(2,'2010-09-22 20:55:11','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1639,'AAALy3///bk='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:11:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',1639,'AAALy3///dU='),(2,'2010-09-22 20:55:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1640,'AAALy3///bc='),(2,'2010-09-22 20:55:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1640,'AAALy3///bY='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:11:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',1640,'AAALy3///dw='),(4,'2010-09-23 08:43:40','Patch Set 3:\n\nI checked this test and found that it never worked in previous commits',1641,'AAALy3///a0='),(4,'2010-09-23 08:37:17','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nthe test PatienceDiffTest.testPerformanceTestDeltaLength() is failing',1641,'AAALy3///a4='),(4,'2010-09-23 08:36:00','Patch Set 3:\n\n- fixed wrong import breaking the build',1641,'AAALy3///a8='),(4,'2010-09-23 08:35:26','Uploaded patch set 3.',1641,'AAALy3///bA='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:11:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',1641,'AAALy3///ds='),(2,'2010-09-26 21:27:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1641,'AAALy3///VU='),(2,'2010-09-26 21:27:01','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1641,'AAALy3///VY='),(1,'2010-09-25 02:12:53','Uploaded patch set 6.',1641,'AAALy3///W8='),(1,'2010-09-25 00:06:36','Uploaded patch set 4.',1641,'AAALy3///Xo='),(1,'2010-09-25 01:18:05','Uploaded patch set 5.',1641,'AAALy3///XY='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:11:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1642,'AAALy3///d4='),(5,'2010-09-21 22:47:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1642,'AAALy3///ek='),(2,'2010-09-26 21:23:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1642,'AAALy3///Vc='),(2,'2010-09-26 21:23:13','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems fine.',1642,'AAALy3///Vg='),(1,'2010-09-25 00:06:35','Uploaded patch set 3.',1642,'AAALy3///Xw='),(1,'2010-09-23 16:12:21','Patch Set 2:\n\nShawn wrote:\n\n > Christian wrote:\n > > But: what can happen will happen and the worst diff I can imagine is\n > > one which simply doesn\'t return. O(N^2) compared to O(ND) can lead\n > > to a basically not returning HistogramDiff while Myers works \"only\" for\n > > minutes.\n >\n > One trick we do within DeltaIndex (the binary delta compression code)\n > is to limit the chain length within a hash bucket to a constant\n > number. If a block occurs within the input more than 64 times, we\n > punt and drop all of the subsequent locations in the stream. That\n > converts the algorithm from O(N^2) to O(N * 64), and gives us a\n > nice linear running time, at the expense of a potentially larger\n > delta instruction sequence.\n >\n > It might be acceptable to do the same thing with HistogramDiff: if\n > any chain is over 64 elements, cut the chain off.\n\nI tried doing this last night.  The RawText hash() implementation\nis horrible.  IIRC its one of DJB\'s function for strings, and its\nproducing a ton of collisions for a JGit source file.\n\nA chain length of 64 elements with the same hash code is too short;\nHistogramDiff has to give up during the first step of scanning A\nbecause too many elements fell into the same hash bucket.\n\nI tried replacing the element with the highest occurrence count in\nthe chain, but this causes some thrashing as very common elements\nare discarded and then put right back.  The side effect is a common\nelement can be mistaken as unique in A because we threw away its\nprior occurrence counter when the chain got too big.\n\nSo putting a limit on the scan+insert of A into the hash table\nseems to be a challenge.  If the hash function performs poorly for\nour input, we\'re stuck with an O(AN^2) insertion time.\n\n >  Since we use only\n > the LCS from the fewest occurrance count chain there is no damage\n > to the result provided, that the best LCS for the current region\n > is actually centered around something with less than 64 occurrances.\n\nThis turned out to be easy; during the scan of B we just have\nto initialize the LCS counter to the maximum chain length, and\nthe scan would automatically avoid any elements with a higher\noccurrence count.\n\n > > Maybe some heuristics about our\n > > histogram can trigger fallback here. Is ist really ok to do Histogram-Diff\n > > if all lines have same occurence count? If the best line is occuring on\n > > 20% of the overall lines? Something like that.\n\nBut we\'re still O(AN^2) during insertion of A into the hash table.  \nWe can\'t avoid that horrible running time when fed a poor hash.',1643,'AAALy3///aY='),(1,'2010-09-22 23:24:44','Patch Set 2:\n\nChristian wrote:\n\n > from the performance measurements you posted histogram\n > diff maybe also a good candidate for native git. I bet that\'s\n > on your list, right.\n\nJunio and I talked about that yesterday for a few minutes.  If I\ncan magically create more time, sure, I\'d love to try porting it\nover to C and see if its worthwhile there.\n\n > Without further improvements on patience diff histogram diff\n > seems to be a better choice. Having only one diff algorithm to\n > maintain/bugfix/improve would be a benefit. But maybe these\n > improvements will bring the extra performance boost to let\n > patience diff survive.\n\nI\'m starting to agree with your sentiment here.  The two are so\nclose in performance that it might be better to just have the one\nHistogramDiff implementation to maintain.  I didn\'t expect that to\nbe the case.  Its good to be proven wrong.\n\n > >  > Now we have a fallback algorithm which works with O(N^2) and there\n > >  > is still MyersDiff working with O(ND).\n > > \n > > I haven\'t analyzed the running time of either implementation yet,\n > > but lets give it a shot... they are nearly identical.\n > \n > I also have not analyzed runtime of HistogramDiff (or PatienceDiff)\n > but your commit messages said HistogramDiff works in O(N^2). That\'s\n > why I assumed you calculated it already.\n\nI assumed it was O(N^2) because of that compare all locations part\nduring the scan of sequence B.  But I hadn\'t put any real thought\ninto it beyond that.\n\n > > Our memory usage is O(AN + D) in either algorithm, as we build a\n > > hash table of size AN to hold the elements of A, and use D memory\n > > to store the edits and the stack during recursion.\n > \n > Thanks for the long explanation about runtime here. Not only that I\n > understand runtime behaviour better was also a good explanation\n > about how the algorithm really works (the javadocs often show only\n > purpose of single methods, but this text solved also some misunderstandings\n > about how all the pieces work together).\n\nI\'ll have to elaborate more in the class Javadoc then... especially\nif we rip out PatienceDiff and keep HistogramDiff instead.\n\n > I do see this as a minor problem. I know we are on very theoretical\n > ground here and normal source code diffs will not be a problem here.\n > But: what can happen will happen and the worst diff I can imagine is\n > one which simply doesn\'t return. O(N^2) compared to O(ND) can lead\n > to a basically not returning HistogramDiff while Myers works \"only\" for\n > minutes.\n\nWell, right now our MyersDiff implementation has a bug where it\nwill never complete for certain inputs.  I suspect a logic error\nin the implementation.  :-)\n\nBut yes, a O(N^2 * D) worst-case running time might never produce\nresults within a reasonable time bound, while an O(N * D) algorithm\nstill would.\n\nOne trick we do within DeltaIndex (the binary delta compression code)\nis to limit the chain length within a hash bucket to a constant\nnumber.  If a block occurs within the input more than 64 times,\nwe punt and drop all of the subsequent locations in the stream.\nThat converts the algorithm from O(N^2) to O(N * 64), and gives us\na nice linear running time, at the expense of a potentially larger\ndelta instruction sequence.\n\nIt might be acceptable to do the same thing with HistogramDiff: if\nany chain is over 64 elements, cut the chain off.  Since we use only\nthe LCS from the fewest occurrance count chain there is no damage\nto the result provided, that the best LCS for the current region\nis actually centered around something with less than 64 occurrances.\n\nIf the fewest occurrances was actually this limit (or higher),    \nwe could recognize that and switch algorithms.\n\n > Maybe some heuristics about our\n > histogram can trigger fallback here. Is ist really ok to do Histogram-Diff\n > if all lines have same occurence count? If the best line is occuring on\n > 20% of the overall lines? Something like that.\n\nYea, what you said.  :-)',1643,'AAALy3///bE='),(5,'2010-09-22 21:35:25','Patch Set 2:\n\nHi,\n\nfrom the performance measurements you posted histogram\ndiff maybe also a good candidate for native git. I bet that\'s\non your list, right.\n\nWithout further improvements on patience diff histogram diff\nseems to be a better choice. Having only one diff algorithm to\nmaintain/bugfix/improve would be a benefit. But maybe these\nimprovements will bring the extra performance boost to let\npatience diff survive.\n\n>  > Now we have a fallback algorithm which works with O(N^2) and there\n>  > is still MyersDiff working with O(ND).\n>\n> I haven\'t analyzed the running time of either implementation yet,\n> but lets give it a shot... they are nearly identical.\n\nI also have not analyzed runtime of HistogramDiff (or PatienceDiff)\nbut your commit messages said HistogramDiff works in O(N^2). That\'s\nwhy I assumed you calculated it already.\n\n...\n> Our memory usage is O(AN + D) in either algorithm, as we build a\n> hash table of size AN to hold the elements of A, and use D memory\n> to store the edits and the stack during recursion.\n\nThanks for the long explanation about runtime here. Not only that I\nunderstand runtime behaviour better was also a good explanation\nabout how the algorithm really works (the javadocs often show only\npurpose of single methods, but this text solved also some misunderstandings\nabout how all the pieces work together).\n\n\n> I think Myers O(ND) algorithm has better worst case performance.\n> Given the analysis above we both agree that HistogramDiff would be\n> O(N^2 * D) if the hash function produced a high rate of collisions\n> for the input sequence, Myers algorithm doesn\'t care.\n\nYes, I do agree on O(N^2 * D)\n\n>  > we can\'t decide easily in HistogramDiff when to switch to our\n>  > fallback\n>\n> Correct, and is why it doesn\'t have a fallback.  By the time we\n\nI do see this as a minor problem. I know we are on very theoretical\nground here and normal source code diffs will not be a problem here.\nBut: what can happen will happen and the worst diff I can imagine is\none which simply doesn\'t return. O(N^2) compared to O(ND) can lead\nto a basically not returning HistogramDiff while Myers works \"only\" for\nminutes. Maybe some heuristics about our\nhistogram can trigger fallback here. Is ist really ok to do Histogram-Diff\nif all lines have same occurence count? If the best line is occuring on\n20% of the overall lines? Something like that.',1643,'AAALy3///bQ='),(5,'2010-09-22 12:07:17','Patch Set 2:\n\nI have some assumptions here which I would like to have proven:\n- HistogramDiff will always produce the same results as a PatienceDiff as long as the PatienceDiff always find uniqe lines.\n- A PatienceDiff algorithm which fallbacks to HistogramDiff when he finds no uniqe lines produces excactly the same result as if you would use only HistogramDiff\n- To some extend PatienceDiff is only a special case of the HistogramDiff. The reason why we don\'t work always only with Histogramm diff is the better performance of Patience diff.\n\nAll that correct?\n\nNow we have a fallback algorithm which works with O(N^2) and there is still MyersDiff working with O(ND). I guess the reason why we don\'t have MyersDiff as last option (the third algorithm in the fallback chain) are the following two reasons:\n- real world tests show that it is with the expected size of sources not worth the effort. Doesn\'t really bring performance benefits in the real world.\n- we can\'t decide easily in HistogramDiff when to switch to our fallback\n\nDid I guess right?',1643,'AAALy3///c0='),(1,'2010-09-22 15:25:52','Patch Set 2:\n\n> HistogramDiff will always produce the same results as a\n > PatienceDiff as long as the PatienceDiff always find uniqe lines.\n\nYes.  If PatienceDiff matches on an element, it means the\nelement is not only common, but is also unique in each sequence. \n\nFor HistogramDiff that same element will have an occurrance count \nof 1 in sequence A, that is the lowest occurrance count possible,\nand thus will also be within the LCS for HistogramDiff.\n\nThe only place HistogramDiff produces a different result is when  \nsequence A has no unique elements, which means its minimum occurrance\ncount is at least 2.  Here PatienceDiff has to fallback to another\nalgorithm, while HistogramDiff will still try to generate something.\n\n > A PatienceDiff algorithm which fallbacks to HistogramDiff when\n > he finds no uniqe lines produces excactly the same result as if\n > you would use only HistogramDiff\n\nYes.  This is true because all of the passes where PatienceDiff\ncan produce a result are identical between both HistogramDiff\nand PatienceDiff.  When PatienceDiff falls back to HistogramDiff,  \nits doing so in exactly the same way that HistogramDiff would have\nrecursed on itself for that same region.\n\n > To some extend PatienceDiff is only a special case of the\n > HistogramDiff. The reason why we don\'t work always only with\n > Histogramm diff is the better performance of Patience diff.\n \nCorrect.  The optimized version of PatienceDiff (which I\'m still \nworking on) uses a smaller hash table and fewer steps for non-unique\nelements.  This should improve performance avoiding elements that\nare very common in source code (e.g. \"\\t}\\n\") and aren\'t very\ninteresting, while still allowing us to find the common but unique\nelements quickly.\n\nBut as you can see by the performance posted in change\nI3c3ec3abd24889faccd571d02c57331c907c0198 its only a small\nimprovement over HistogramDiff.  It almost doesn\'t seem to\nbe worth it, but it can be when summed up over multiple files    \nwithin the same operation (e.g. to show a commit\'s full diff\nor to merge two commits).\n \n > Now we have a fallback algorithm which works with O(N^2) and there\n > is still MyersDiff working with O(ND).\n\nI haven\'t analyzed the running time of either implementation yet,\nbut lets give it a shot... they are nearly identical.\n \nLets use AN for the length of sequence A and BN be the length of\nsequence B.  Myers\' N is AN + BN.\n \nThe first step examines AN and stores it into a hash table.\nThis occurs in O(AN) time.  Each element is scanned once, and added\nto the chain.  If we assume the hash function is reasonable, we have\nnearly constant insertion performance, so the scan step is O(AN).  \nIf its horrible and gives lots of collisions, this scan is O(AN^2) \nas we consider all of the elements in the same hash bucket.\n\nOnce a position has been found for a single element, the\ninsertion cost is constant for both PatienceDiff and HistogramDiff.\nIn PatienceDiff we set a bit flag if the element already exists in\nthe table, otherwise we push it onto a list.  In HistogramDiff we \npush the element onto the head of a list, and increment a counter.\nSo the entire first step is O(AN)... or O(AN^2) if the hash sucks.\n\n\nThe second step scans BN and probes the hash table for each item.\nThis occurs in O(BN) time.  Each element is probed once, and again\nthe hash function determines if this is O(BN) or O(BN * AN) time.\n\nFor PatienceDiff we only have to consider unique elements, so the\ncompare cost is constant.\n\nFor HistogramDiff we have to compare to all matching locations,\nso its O(AN * BN).  However I think we have a lower average running\ntime here because we won\'t consider an A chain that has occurrance  \ncounts longer than our current LCS segment.  As that approaches the\nlowest occurrance count within A, the size of AN drops, and we get\ncloser to O(BN) time on average.  This is where PatienceDiff should\nrun better, it won\'t ever consider a location where AN > 1.\n\nOnce the LCS is found, we split the input around it and recursively\nprocess AN/2 and BN/2 twice.  Each split is two Edits in the edit\nscript, and thus the number of splits we perform is Myers\' D/2.\nSo we run O(D) recursive steps.\n\nSo assuming the hash function doesn\'t create a lot of collisions, \nwe are around O((AN+BN) * D) or O(ND).  If all elements hash to\nthe same value (e.g. 0), yea, we\'re looking more at O(N^2 * D).\n \nOur memory usage is O(AN + D) in either algorithm, as we build a  \nhash table of size AN to hold the elements of A, and use D memory\nto store the edits and the stack during recursion.\n\nMyers\' paper states MyersDiff should be using O(ND) memory for the\nO(ND) variant we have, but he also has a variant that uses O(N)    \nspace and O(N log N + D) running time.  I don\'t know how he gets  \nthe latter variant to work.\n\n > I guess the reason why we\n > don\'t have MyersDiff as last option (the third algorithm in the\n > fallback chain) are the following two reasons:\n \nHistogramDiff doesn\'t support a fallback.  That is the primary   \nreason.  :-)\n\n > real world tests show that it is with the expected size of sources\n > not worth the effort. Doesn\'t really bring performance benefits in\n > the real world.\n\nI contend this is true, given the limited testing I have performed.\n\nFor line oriented inputs that are human written source files, the\ncurrent content hashes produce relatively few collisions, and there\nare often a large number of unique or low occurrance count lines\nwe can anchor LCS searching around.  The hash function permits us\nto find these points with relatively low effort, and we can get a\nreasonable edit script by using those common points.\n \nI think Myers O(ND) algorithm has better worst case performance.\nGiven the analysis above we both agree that HistogramDiff would be\nO(N^2 * D) if the hash function produced a high rate of collisions\nfor the input sequence, Myers algorithm doesn\'t care.\n\n > we can\'t decide easily in HistogramDiff when to switch to our\n > fallback\n\nCorrect, and is why it doesn\'t have a fallback.  By the time we\nget around to concluding we have very few low occurrance elements,  \nwe\'ve done the majority of the work we need anyway to find the LCS \nand split.  Switching over to MyersDiff on the recursion might not \nbe an improvement at that point.',1643,'AAALy3///cc='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:11:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1643,'AAALy3///d0='),(2,'2010-09-26 21:41:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1643,'AAALy3///VM='),(2,'2010-09-26 21:41:26','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1643,'AAALy3///VQ='),(1,'2010-09-25 02:14:45','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nOK, I think this implementation is sane.  Its bloody fast:\n\n testDefault     Myers                 492139 ns    8 edits\n testDefault     Histogram             186391 ns    8 edits\n \n testIgnoreAll   Myers                1319354 ns    8 edits\n testIgnoreAll   Histogram             316697 ns    8 edits',1643,'AAALy3///Ws='),(1,'2010-09-25 02:12:53','Uploaded patch set 5.',1643,'AAALy3///XA='),(1,'2010-09-25 01:18:05','Uploaded patch set 4.',1643,'AAALy3///Xc='),(1,'2010-09-25 01:32:30','Patch Set 4: Do not submit\n\nThis isn\'t ready.  The fallback is always used, even if we can prove that its not necessary.  Which means its slower than it should be because its always invoking MyersDiff at the bottom of the recursion stack.',1643,'AAALy3///XE='),(1,'2010-09-25 00:10:19','Patch Set 3:\n\nI\'m fairly happy with this implementation now.  Performance beats MyersDiff, and is close enough to the heavily optimized PatienceDiff that I\'m starting to think Christian is right and we should drop PatienceDiff:\n\n  testDefault     Myers                 560000 ns    8 edits\n  testDefault     Patience              220000 ns    6 edits\n  testDefault     Histogram             420000 ns    8 edits\n  \n  testIgnoreAll   Myers                1460000 ns    8 edits\n  testIgnoreAll   Patience              360000 ns    6 edits\n  testIgnoreAll   Histogram             420000 ns    8 edits\n\nThese numbers were taken using the heavily optimized PatienceDiff, not the one that is currently in tree.  Unfortunately PatienceDiff and HistogramDiff run so fast that I\'m having trouble getting a stable set of results from them, values vary from 360000 ns to the 420000 ns you see above.  I\'m suspecting its noise from the GC, because both algorithms discard and allocate new memory during each recursive step.',1643,'AAALy3///Xg='),(1,'2010-09-25 00:06:36','Uploaded patch set 3.',1643,'AAALy3///Xs='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:11:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',1644,'AAALy3///dg='),(1,'2010-09-25 01:18:39','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nThis is just too slow.  By the time we do the work we might as well only use HistogramDiff.',1644,'AAALy3///XM='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:11:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',1645,'AAALy3///dc='),(5,'2010-09-21 22:54:17','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nminor javadoc, otherwise ok for me',1645,'AAALy3///ec='),(1,'2010-09-21 22:55:17','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1645,'AAALy3///eU='),(1,'2010-09-25 02:12:53','Uploaded patch set 5.',1645,'AAALy3///Ww='),(1,'2010-09-25 00:06:36','Uploaded patch set 3.',1645,'AAALy3///Xk='),(1,'2010-09-25 01:18:05','Uploaded patch set 4.',1645,'AAALy3///XQ='),(1,'2010-10-11 21:37:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1645,'AAALy3//+40='),(1,'2010-10-11 21:37:22','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1645,'AAALy3//+44='),(1,'2010-10-11 21:37:12','Uploaded patch set 8.',1645,'AAALy3//+48='),(NULL,'2010-10-11 21:24:39','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 2 of I2502684d, however the current patch set is 3.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1645,'AAALy3//+5I='),(1,'2010-10-11 19:58:29','Uploaded patch set 7.',1645,'AAALy3//+5s='),(2,'2010-10-11 21:19:05','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1645,'AAALy3//+5U='),(1,'2010-10-10 21:41:37','Uploaded patch set 6.',1645,'AAALy3//+8U='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:11:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',1646,'AAALy3///do='),(1,'2010-09-21 22:55:54','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\nBecause this prints to System.out its a horrible unit test.',1646,'AAALy3///eQ='),(1,'2010-10-10 21:42:06','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nReplaced by the debug-diff-algorithms program class.',1646,'AAALy3//+8Q='),(1,'2010-09-22 04:10:58','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1647,'AAALy3///dE='),(1,'2010-09-22 01:13:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI think this is a nice simplification of the code, and a decent performance improvement too.  :-)',1647,'AAALy3///dQ='),(1,'2010-09-25 01:19:51','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nThis seems to be not worthwhile.  HistogramDiff runs so close to PatienceDiff that it beats the optimized PatienceDiff that needs to fallback on HistogramDiff when there are no more unique elements in the region.\n\nConsequently I may queue up a change to delete PatienceDiff.',1647,'AAALy3///XI='),(2,'2010-09-29 14:09:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1648,'AAALy3///Rg='),(2,'2010-09-29 14:09:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is a small enough change, going to push it.',1648,'AAALy3///Rk='),(1,'2010-10-12 19:05:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1649,'AAALy3//+2E='),(1,'2010-10-12 19:05:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1649,'AAALy3//+2I='),(2,'2010-09-22 16:37:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1650,'AAALy3///cU='),(2,'2010-09-22 16:37:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1650,'AAALy3///cY='),(1,'2010-10-06 17:24:11','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nUnnecessary merge change.',1651,'AAALy3///F8='),(87,'2010-09-24 21:58:10','Patch Set 1:\n\nsorry, this merge commit was a Gerrit newby mistake: \nI intended on submitting a changeset  http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1652 which depends on  http://egit.eclipse.org/r/389 and inadvertently created this merge commit.',1651,'AAALy3///X0='),(4,'2010-09-24 21:50:01','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis merge commit looks weird. What\'s your intention ? I can help if needed.',1651,'AAALy3///X4='),(1,'2010-10-06 17:23:49','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nMoved to change 1671.',1652,'AAALy3///GA='),(4,'2010-09-28 07:52:00','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI moved this change onto retargeted change from Shawn, see http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1671. If this fits to what you intended abandon this change and also the merge commit http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1651',1652,'AAALy3///SU='),(4,'2010-09-23 10:55:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1653,'AAALy3///ao='),(4,'2010-09-23 10:55:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- fixed whitespace errors',1653,'AAALy3///as='),(4,'2010-09-23 10:54:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',1653,'AAALy3///aw='),(2,'2010-09-22 22:09:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI think this is a good start on content. In the future, we can expand and add more things. In the mean time, I think it\'s important we have something present when users install EGit they will see this on the welcome screen automatically.',1653,'AAALy3///bM='),(38,'2010-09-23 15:45:04','Patch Set 2:\n\nAre you looking for testing a table that uses SWT.VIRTUAL to populate the table lazily ?',1654,'AAALy3///ac='),(44,'2010-09-23 15:00:44','Patch Set 2:\n\nHi Ketan, is there a better way to fix the issue with virtual SWT tables?',1654,'AAALy3///ag='),(44,'2010-09-23 12:11:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1654,'AAALy3///ak='),(4,'2010-09-24 12:35:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1654,'AAALy3///Zc='),(4,'2010-09-24 12:35:55','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- improved commit message header',1654,'AAALy3///Zg='),(4,'2010-09-24 12:35:03','Uploaded patch set 3.',1654,'AAALy3///Zk='),(44,'2010-09-24 07:00:36','Patch Set 2:\n\nHi Ketan,\r\nyes, that\'s the problem. I had the issue that an item was not loaded because it was not in visible.\r\nI could increase the size of the view to make the item visible, but I think that\'s no stable solution. In my workaround I forced loading the TableItem.',1654,'AAALy3///Zo='),(4,'2010-09-23 23:27:38','Patch Set 2:\n\nOn Mac the synchronize tests fail with an exception :\n\n\n!ENTRY org.eclipse.jface 4 0 2010-09-24 01:26:39.257\n!MESSAGE Unhandled event loop exception during blocked modal context.\n!STACK 0\norg.eclipse.swt.SWTException: Failed to execute runnable (org.eclipse.swt.SWTException: Widget is disposed)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:4083)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:3998)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Synchronizer.runAsyncMessages(Synchronizer.java:137)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.runAsyncMessages(Display.java:3586)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3279)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.operation.ModalContext$ModalContextThread.block(ModalContext.java:173)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.operation.ModalContext.run(ModalContext.java:388)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog.run(WizardDialog.java:1008)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.clone.GitCloneWizard$3.run(GitCloneWizard.java:197)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.RunnableLock.run(RunnableLock.java:35)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Synchronizer.runAsyncMessages(Synchronizer.java:134)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.runAsyncMessages(Display.java:3586)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3279)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.window.Window.runEventLoop(Window.java:825)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.window.Window.open(Window.java:801)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.WizardHandler$Import.executeHandler(WizardHandler.java:147)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.WizardHandler.execute(WizardHandler.java:274)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.HandlerProxy.execute(HandlerProxy.java:293)\n	at org.eclipse.core.commands.Command.executeWithChecks(Command.java:476)\n	at org.eclipse.core.commands.ParameterizedCommand.executeWithChecks(ParameterizedCommand.java:508)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.HandlerService.executeCommand(HandlerService.java:169)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.SlaveHandlerService.executeCommand(SlaveHandlerService.java:241)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.actions.CommandAction.runWithEvent(CommandAction.java:157)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem.handleWidgetSelection(ActionContributionItem.java:584)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem.access$2(ActionContributionItem.java:501)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem$5.handleEvent(ActionContributionItem.java:411)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.EventTable.sendEvent(EventTable.java:84)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.sendEvent(Display.java:3776)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1367)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1390)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1375)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.notifyListeners(Widget.java:1187)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBot$2.run(AbstractSWTBot.java:158)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.finders.UIThreadRunnable$5.doRun(UIThreadRunnable.java:221)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.finders.UIThreadRunnable$1.run(UIThreadRunnable.java:89)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.RunnableLock.run(RunnableLock.java:35)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Synchronizer.runAsyncMessages(Synchronizer.java:134)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.runAsyncMessages(Display.java:3586)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3279)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runEventLoop(Workbench.java:2629)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runUI(Workbench.java:2593)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.access$4(Workbench.java:2427)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench$7.run(Workbench.java:670)\n	at org.eclipse.core.databinding.observable.Realm.runWithDefault(Realm.java:332)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.createAndRunWorkbench(Workbench.java:663)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.PlatformUI.createAndRunWorkbench(PlatformUI.java:149)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ide.application.IDEApplication.start(IDEApplication.java:115)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.start(UITestApplication.java:54)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.app.EclipseAppHandle.run(EclipseAppHandle.java:196)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.runApplication(EclipseAppLauncher.java:110)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.start(EclipseAppLauncher.java:79)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:369)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:179)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.invokeFramework(Main.java:619)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.basicRun(Main.java:574)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.run(Main.java:1407)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.main(Main.java:1383)\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swt.SWTException: Widget is disposed\n	at org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:4083)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:3998)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:3969)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.error(Widget.java:715)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.checkWidget(Widget.java:531)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Label.setText(Label.java:511)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.ProgressMonitorPart.updateLabel(ProgressMonitorPart.java:366)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.ProgressMonitorPart.subTask(ProgressMonitorPart.java:357)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog$4.subTask(WizardDialog.java:705)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.operation.AccumulatingProgressMonitor$Collector.run(AccumulatingProgressMonitor.java:94)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.RunnableLock.run(RunnableLock.java:35)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Synchronizer.runAsyncMessages(Synchronizer.java:134)\n	... 58 more',1654,'AAALy3///Zw='),(1,'2010-09-23 21:48:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1655,'AAALy3///aM='),(1,'2010-09-23 21:48:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1655,'AAALy3///aQ='),(5,'2010-09-24 13:02:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1656,'AAALy3///Y0='),(2,'2010-09-24 16:34:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1656,'AAALy3///YI='),(2,'2010-09-24 16:34:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1656,'AAALy3///YM='),(4,'2010-09-24 13:00:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1657,'AAALy3///Y4='),(4,'2010-09-24 13:00:52','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- fixed some minor style nits',1657,'AAALy3///Y8='),(4,'2010-09-24 13:00:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',1657,'AAALy3///ZA='),(2,'2010-09-24 16:14:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nA bit hackish due to the retries but looks good.',1658,'AAALy3///Yc='),(2,'2010-09-24 16:14:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1658,'AAALy3///YY='),(2,'2010-09-24 16:22:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1659,'AAALy3///YQ='),(2,'2010-09-24 16:22:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine. This code should end up in SWTBot somehow...',1659,'AAALy3///YU='),(2,'2010-09-26 21:22:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1660,'AAALy3///Vk='),(2,'2010-09-26 21:22:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems reasonable.',1660,'AAALy3///Vo='),(2,'2010-09-27 14:07:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1661,'AAALy3///UE='),(2,'2010-09-27 14:07:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks for the review.',1661,'AAALy3///UI='),(5,'2010-09-27 09:02:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1661,'AAALy3///UY='),(2,'2010-09-24 20:34:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',1661,'AAALy3///YA='),(1,'2010-09-25 02:12:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',1662,'AAALy3///W0='),(2,'2010-10-11 21:18:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1662,'AAALy3//+5g='),(2,'2010-10-11 21:18:03','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1662,'AAALy3//+5k='),(1,'2010-10-10 21:41:37','Uploaded patch set 3.',1662,'AAALy3//+8Y='),(5,'2010-09-27 08:53:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1663,'AAALy3///Uc='),(2,'2010-10-11 22:05:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1663,'AAALy3//+4o='),(2,'2010-10-11 22:05:39','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDone.',1663,'AAALy3//+4s='),(2,'2010-10-11 22:05:29','Uploaded patch set 5.',1663,'AAALy3//+4w='),(1,'2010-10-11 21:37:11','Uploaded patch set 4.',1663,'AAALy3//+5A='),(1,'2010-10-11 19:58:29','Uploaded patch set 3.',1663,'AAALy3//+5w='),(1,'2010-10-10 21:45:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1663,'AAALy3//+8I='),(2,'2010-09-27 21:59:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1664,'AAALy3///S4='),(2,'2010-09-27 21:59:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nA bit pedantic but OK :)',1664,'AAALy3///TA='),(4,'2010-09-29 13:04:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1665,'AAALy3///R4='),(4,'2010-09-29 13:04:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1665,'AAALy3///R8='),(8,'2010-09-28 21:27:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1665,'AAALy3///SQ='),(4,'2010-09-27 20:35:20','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nLGTM, typo in commit message should be fixed',1665,'AAALy3///TU='),(4,'2010-09-29 13:05:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1666,'AAALy3///R0='),(4,'2010-09-29 13:05:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1666,'AAALy3///Rw='),(NULL,'2010-09-27 21:59:36','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* I29109344d2e8025fa2a3ccaf7c2c16469544ce05\n',1666,'AAALy3///S8='),(8,'2010-09-28 21:27:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1666,'AAALy3///SM='),(4,'2010-09-27 20:23:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1666,'AAALy3///Tg='),(5,'2010-09-27 08:52:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1667,'AAALy3///Ug='),(5,'2010-09-27 08:52:07','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1667,'AAALy3///Uk='),(5,'2010-09-27 08:51:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',1667,'AAALy3///Uo='),(5,'2010-09-26 09:14:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1667,'AAALy3///WQ='),(2,'2010-09-27 14:07:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1668,'AAALy3///UM='),(2,'2010-09-27 14:07:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is fine.',1668,'AAALy3///UQ='),(2,'2010-10-01 16:02:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1669,'AAALy3///L4='),(2,'2010-10-01 16:02:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI\'m happy with this change.',1669,'AAALy3///L8='),(2,'2010-09-27 15:16:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',1669,'AAALy3///UA='),(2,'2010-10-07 16:25:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1670,'AAALy3///Dk='),(2,'2010-10-07 16:25:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s do it.',1670,'AAALy3///Do='),(1,'2010-10-06 16:49:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1670,'AAALy3///Gw='),(4,'2010-09-28 06:45:08','Patch Set 1:\n\n- rebased to current master and resolved conflicts\n- retargeted to master (had target stable-0.7) from http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,389',1670,'AAALy3///S0='),(6,'2010-11-11 14:35:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1671,'AAAL0H///30='),(6,'2010-11-11 14:35:42','Patch Set 3: IP review completed\n\n',1671,'AAAL0H///34='),(6,'2010-11-11 14:35:37','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1671,'AAAL0H///38='),(1,'2010-11-10 23:15:16','Patch Set 3:\n\nI think this is a better strategy, as it was extensible into the JSch case where we also have to ask about unknown or changed host keys, and passphrases for private keys.\n\nIt is a bit ugly to implement.  Be sure to check the final patch in the series (http://egit.eclipse.org/r/1881) to see an example of the new provider implementation for AWT and Java 6\'s system console.',1671,'AAAL0H///4g='),(1,'2010-11-10 23:13:41','Uploaded patch set 3.',1671,'AAAL0H///4k='),(1,'2010-11-10 19:52:27','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',1671,'AAAL0H///54='),(5,'2010-11-10 15:44:57','Patch Set 1: (6 inline comments)\n\n',1671,'AAAL0H///7A='),(5,'2010-11-10 15:43:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',1671,'AAAL0H///7E='),(1,'2010-10-06 17:23:04','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1671,'AAALy3///GE='),(4,'2010-09-28 07:50:00','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n- removed merge commit http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1651 by cherry-picking http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1652 onto retargeted http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1670\n- cleaned up commit message to follow project conventions\n- I am not sure if this change goes in the right direction',1671,'AAALy3///SY='),(2,'2010-10-04 19:31:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',1672,'AAALy3///K0='),(2,'2010-10-05 18:16:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1672,'AAALy3///Kc='),(2,'2010-10-05 18:16:25','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s try it again.',1672,'AAALy3///Kg='),(2,'2010-10-05 18:15:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',1672,'AAALy3///Kk='),(NULL,'2010-10-05 18:14:36','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1672,'AAALy3///Ko='),(2,'2010-10-05 18:14:36','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI\'m happy with this revision.',1672,'AAALy3///Ks='),(4,'2010-10-03 21:17:10','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\ncould you add some tests here ?',1672,'AAALy3///LQ='),(49,'2010-09-29 08:05:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1673,'AAALy3///SA='),(49,'2010-09-29 08:05:03','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1673,'AAALy3///SE='),(6,'2010-09-29 07:36:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',1673,'AAALy3///SI='),(4,'2010-09-29 13:39:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1674,'AAALy3///Ro='),(4,'2010-09-29 13:39:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1674,'AAALy3///Rs='),(2,'2010-09-29 14:20:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems OK.',1675,'AAALy3///Rc='),(2,'2010-09-29 14:20:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1675,'AAALy3///RY='),(6,'2010-09-30 14:02:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1676,'AAALy3///P8='),(6,'2010-09-30 14:02:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI just wanted to open a bug for this...\n\nThanks, Dariusz!',1676,'AAALy3///QA='),(49,'2010-10-05 19:44:07','Uploaded patch set 7.',1677,'AAALy3///J0='),(49,'2010-10-05 19:43:53','Patch Set 6:\n\nThis issue was caused by inconsistent state of preferences page after GlobalConfigurationPageTest.',1677,'AAALy3///J4='),(4,'2010-10-05 22:08:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1677,'AAALy3///JM='),(4,'2010-10-05 22:08:51','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1677,'AAALy3///JQ='),(4,'2010-10-05 22:08:24','Uploaded patch set 8.',1677,'AAALy3///JU='),(4,'2010-09-30 23:11:40','Patch Set 6:\n\n- rebased\n- now I don\'t get exceptions anymore\n- but still one problem remaining: if I run the full test suite the Synchronize View Tests fail with timeout, if I run only the Synchronize View Tests they succeed, hence there seems to be some unintended interaction between these tests.\n\n\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 5000 ms.: Timed out waiting for Shell {Preferences} to get activated\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.waitUntil(SWTBotFactory.java:398)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.waitUntil(SWTBotFactory.java:372)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.waitUntil(SWTBotFactory.java:360)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotShell.activate(SWTBotShell.java:71)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.Eclipse.openPreferencePage(Eclipse.java:97)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.synchronize.SynchronizeViewTest.setupEnvironment(SynchronizeViewTest.java:207)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:27)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)',1677,'AAALy3///Mg='),(4,'2010-09-30 23:08:38','Uploaded patch set 6.',1677,'AAALy3///Mw='),(49,'2010-09-30 22:21:39','Patch Set 4:\n\nThis NPE occurs only when project that was synchronized was deleted in mean time. Change I52bd9edd1ef0995949473ae0f102f7cb9b94433c (#1688) should fix this.',1677,'AAALy3///NA='),(49,'2010-09-30 17:48:07','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\nshouldReturnListOfChanges() fails because synchronize action was in progress when STWBot reach assertions, therefore I\'ve added a bot.sleep() just before assertions statement block.\n\nThe NPE that you were describing should be fixed by Stefan Lay\'s commit Fix NullPointer in Synchronize View when project is deleted (42db742)',1677,'AAALy3///Nc='),(49,'2010-09-30 22:19:50','Uploaded patch set 5.',1677,'AAALy3///NE='),(4,'2010-09-30 21:30:41','Patch Set 4:\n\nthis looks better now, first time that the Synchronize View tests succeed on my end, but I still see this NPE in the error log :\n\norg.eclipse.team.core.TeamException: An internal error occurred processing subscriber events.\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.processEvent(SubscriberEventHandler.java:332)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.BackgroundEventHandler.processEvents(BackgroundEventHandler.java:369)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.BackgroundEventHandler$1.run(BackgroundEventHandler.java:203)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run(Worker.java:54)\nCaused by: java.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitSyncInfo.calculateKind(GitSyncInfo.java:47)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.synchronize.SyncInfo.init(SyncInfo.java:401)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.getSyncInfo(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.getSyncInfo(ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.java:59)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.subscribers.Subscriber.getDiff(Subscriber.java:371)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberDiffTreeEventHandler.handleChange(SubscriberDiffTreeEventHandler.java:162)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.collect(SubscriberEventHandler.java:219)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.processEvent(SubscriberEventHandler.java:310)\n	... 3 more',1677,'AAALy3///NI='),(49,'2010-09-30 17:48:19','Uploaded patch set 4.',1677,'AAALy3///NU='),(4,'2010-09-30 13:53:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',1677,'AAALy3///Qc='),(4,'2010-09-30 13:59:29','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- on Mac the Preferences are located in the application menu hence we need to use a platform independent way to open them, I fixed this.\n- on Mac the test shouldReturnListOfChanges() is failing with an assertion:\njava.lang.AssertionError: expected:<1> but was:<0>\n	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:91)\n	at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:645)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:126)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:470)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:454)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.synchronize.SynchronizeViewTest.shouldReturnListOfChanges(SynchronizeViewTest.java:92)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)\n- in addition I see some NPEs in the error log when executing the SynchronizeViewTest :\n!SUBENTRY 1 org.eclipse.team.core 4 0 2010-09-30 15:57:10.175\n!MESSAGE An internal error occurred processing subscriber events.\n!STACK 1\norg.eclipse.team.core.TeamException: An internal error occurred processing subscriber events.\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.processEvent(SubscriberEventHandler.java:332)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.BackgroundEventHandler.processEvents(BackgroundEventHandler.java:369)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.BackgroundEventHandler$1.run(BackgroundEventHandler.java:203)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run(Worker.java:54)\nCaused by: java.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getPath(GitResourceVariantTree.java:191)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.fetchVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:88)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.fetchVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:75)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getResourceVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:150)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.getSyncInfo(ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.java:52)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.subscribers.Subscriber.getDiff(Subscriber.java:371)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberDiffTreeEventHandler.handleChange(SubscriberDiffTreeEventHandler.java:162)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.collect(SubscriberEventHandler.java:219)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.processEvent(SubscriberEventHandler.java:310)\n	... 3 more\n!SUBENTRY 2 org.eclipse.team.core 4 0 2010-09-30 15:57:10.176\n!MESSAGE An internal error occurred processing subscriber events.\n!STACK 0\njava.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getPath(GitResourceVariantTree.java:191)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.fetchVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:88)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.fetchVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:75)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getResourceVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:150)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.getSyncInfo(ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.java:52)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.subscribers.Subscriber.getDiff(Subscriber.java:371)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberDiffTreeEventHandler.handleChange(SubscriberDiffTreeEventHandler.java:162)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.collect(SubscriberEventHandler.java:219)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.processEvent(SubscriberEventHandler.java:310)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.BackgroundEventHandler.processEvents(BackgroundEventHandler.java:369)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.BackgroundEventHandler$1.run(BackgroundEventHandler.java:203)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run(Worker.java:54)',1677,'AAALy3///QQ='),(6,'2010-09-30 13:57:02','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1677,'AAALy3///QU='),(49,'2010-09-30 00:03:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',1677,'AAALy3///RU='),(46,'2010-09-30 13:29:40','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1678,'AAALy3///Qw='),(46,'2010-09-30 13:28:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',1678,'AAALy3///RA='),(63,'2010-09-30 13:17:26','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\nI haven\'t actually tested the code but it seems okay. I would have considered a) using DeferredTreeContentManager but that might be a little bit much or b) having the tags retrieved before the population of the dialog but I think the \"Loading...\" message should be sufficient.\n\nIf you want to refine the behaviour even further, you could add support for progress monitoring and reporting...though I realize you\'ve set it up to be a system job at the moment (though system jobs can be displayed in the \'Progress\' view actually). If progress monitoring was implemented then the job could support cancellation properly when the user just closes the dialog before the table actually gets populated. As it is right now, all the tags are retrieved even if the dialog has already been closed.',1678,'AAALy3///RE='),(44,'2010-10-13 09:44:13','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1678,'AAALzH////A='),(44,'2010-10-13 10:27:00','Patch Set 2:\n\nGot an NPE:\njava.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.dialogs.CreateTagDialog$1.run(CreateTagDialog.java:275)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run(Worker.java:54)\nThe shell should be retrieved from PlatformUI.',1678,'AAALzH///+8='),(44,'2010-10-13 12:47:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1678,'AAALzH///+E='),(44,'2010-10-13 12:47:04','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nMoved RevWalk execution to getRevCommits to get this done outside the UI thread (done together with Mathias).',1678,'AAALzH///+I='),(44,'2010-10-13 12:41:14','Uploaded patch set 4.',1678,'AAALzH///+M='),(46,'2010-10-13 10:45:43','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1678,'AAALzH///+o='),(46,'2010-10-13 10:44:57','Uploaded patch set 3.',1678,'AAALzH///+w='),(2,'2010-10-01 14:14:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1679,'AAALy3///MI='),(2,'2010-10-01 14:14:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\nGood for now.',1679,'AAALy3///MM='),(2,'2010-09-30 14:52:19','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks ok, logic could be simplified.',1679,'AAALy3///O0='),(46,'2010-09-30 14:57:18','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1679,'AAALy3///Oc='),(46,'2010-09-30 15:13:45','Uploaded patch set 3.',1680,'AAALy3///N0='),(NULL,'2010-09-30 15:13:39','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1680,'AAALy3///N4='),(NULL,'2010-09-30 15:13:35','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1680,'AAALy3///N8='),(6,'2010-09-30 15:17:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1680,'AAALy3///Ng='),(6,'2010-09-30 15:17:14','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1680,'AAALy3///Nk='),(46,'2010-09-30 15:14:40','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebased to current master.',1680,'AAALy3///Nw='),(6,'2010-09-30 15:13:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1680,'AAALy3///OA='),(46,'2010-09-30 15:09:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',1680,'AAALy3///OM='),(6,'2010-09-30 15:06:45','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1680,'AAALy3///OU='),(1,'2010-10-06 16:36:22','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1681,'AAALy3///HQ='),(1,'2010-10-08 20:05:12','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAnother strategy is required, and is being worked on in a different change.',1681,'AAALy3//+9c='),(2,'2010-10-01 16:19:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',1682,'AAALy3///L0='),(2,'2010-10-01 16:20:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1682,'AAALy3///Ls='),(2,'2010-10-01 16:20:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.\n\nI\'m going to open a bug to look at refactoring our preference pages a bit... I think we have too many pages and we can just use the first \"Git\" page.',1682,'AAALy3///Lw='),(49,'2010-09-30 14:50:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1683,'AAALy3///O8='),(49,'2010-09-30 14:50:46','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1683,'AAALy3///PA='),(6,'2010-09-30 14:49:52','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1683,'AAALy3///PM='),(6,'2010-09-30 14:48:02','Uploaded patch set 2.',1683,'AAALy3///PY='),(49,'2010-09-30 13:47:40','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nPlease review comment.',1683,'AAALy3///Qk='),(2,'2010-09-30 15:14:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1684,'AAALy3///No='),(2,'2010-09-30 15:14:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1684,'AAALy3///Ns='),(6,'2010-09-30 15:12:48','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nWho added this to the commit?',1684,'AAALy3///OE='),(6,'2010-09-30 15:11:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1684,'AAALy3///OI='),(2,'2010-09-30 14:54:49','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks ok, remove the .patch file',1684,'AAALy3///Os='),(2,'2010-09-30 14:55:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1685,'AAALy3///Ok='),(2,'2010-09-30 14:55:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1685,'AAALy3///Oo='),(4,'2010-09-30 22:26:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1686,'AAALy3///M0='),(4,'2010-09-30 22:26:06','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',1686,'AAALy3///M4='),(4,'2010-09-30 22:25:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1686,'AAALy3///M8='),(2,'2010-09-30 18:36:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1687,'AAALy3///NM='),(2,'2010-09-30 18:36:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1687,'AAALy3///NQ='),(49,'2010-09-30 17:48:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',1687,'AAALy3///NY='),(63,'2010-09-30 14:36:53','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1687,'AAALy3///Pc='),(46,'2010-09-30 14:06:12','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1687,'AAALy3///Ps='),(4,'2010-09-30 23:09:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1688,'AAALy3///Mk='),(4,'2010-09-30 23:09:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1688,'AAALy3///Mo='),(4,'2010-09-30 23:08:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',1688,'AAALy3///Ms='),(6,'2010-10-01 07:43:24','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI just saw your fix. In the meantime I had pushed http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1691.\n\nYou patch does not fix the tests GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest1.java and GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest2.java\n\nYou can either push a new version or take mine, I don\'t mind ;-)',1689,'AAALy3///Mc='),(49,'2010-10-01 08:11:21','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nDuplicated with change I94793d6c90d98d407b55c05dbc4357192e1cfd13',1689,'AAALy3///MY='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:07:00','Uploaded patch set 4.',1690,'AAALy3///Ao='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:10:24','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nrebased and fixed typo',1690,'AAALy3///AQ='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:10:07','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1690,'AAALy3///AU='),(4,'2010-10-07 22:41:34','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\nseries needs to be rebased',1690,'AAALy3///B0='),(5,'2010-10-07 11:53:09','Uploaded patch set 3.',1690,'AAALy3///D8='),(5,'2010-10-06 15:44:17','Patch Set 2:\n\nI added some predecessor relationships and divided the original change into multiple ones just to make this change better reviewable. The set of all related changes lead to nearly the same state as changeset #1 of this one.',1690,'AAALy3///H4='),(5,'2010-10-06 15:40:10','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1690,'AAALy3///H8='),(5,'2010-10-06 15:38:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',1690,'AAALy3///IA='),(11,'2010-10-01 19:39:09','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1690,'AAALy3///Lk='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:13:14','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1690,'AAALy3//+/A='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:12:09','Uploaded patch set 5.',1690,'AAALy3//+/E='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:04:31','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1690,'AAALy3//+/k='),(NULL,'2010-10-08 09:09:34','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 3 of I87db0249, however the current patch set is 4.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1690,'AAALy3//+/M='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:13:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1690,'AAALy3//++8='),(49,'2010-10-01 08:11:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1691,'AAALy3///MQ='),(49,'2010-10-01 08:11:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1691,'AAALy3///MU='),(46,'2011-02-15 09:43:09','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nIt doesn\'t look like anyone wants this...',1692,'AAAL23///tI='),(4,'2010-10-28 14:41:49','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- resolved conflicts',1692,'AAALzX///sI='),(4,'2010-10-28 14:39:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',1692,'AAALzX///sM='),(4,'2010-10-28 14:36:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',1692,'AAALzX///sQ='),(2,'2010-10-01 16:01:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1693,'AAALy3///MA='),(2,'2010-10-01 16:01:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks reasonable.',1693,'AAALy3///ME='),(4,'2010-10-03 21:55:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1694,'AAALy3///LE='),(4,'2010-10-03 21:55:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1694,'AAALy3///LI='),(4,'2010-10-03 21:52:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',1694,'AAALy3///LM='),(46,'2010-10-06 17:03:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1695,'AAALy3///Gc='),(46,'2010-10-06 17:03:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1695,'AAALy3///Gg='),(46,'2010-10-07 09:42:25','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1696,'AAALy3///Ec='),(46,'2010-10-07 09:42:04','Uploaded patch set 3.',1696,'AAALy3///Eg='),(46,'2010-10-07 09:43:21','Patch Set 3:\n\nWorked on Shawns comments, rebased to current master, and replaced some Strings with constants.',1696,'AAALy3///EY='),(1,'2010-10-06 18:25:22','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',1696,'AAALy3///Fc='),(2,'2010-10-06 16:48:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nYou may want to use constants for some of the configuration items...\n\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1706\n\nOther than that, I think this is a good start.',1696,'AAALy3///G0='),(46,'2010-10-06 07:41:19','Patch Set 1: (13 inline comments)\n\n',1696,'AAALy3///II='),(46,'2010-10-06 07:40:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',1696,'AAALy3///IM='),(5,'2010-10-05 23:43:37','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\njust answering on one comment from Matthias',1696,'AAALy3///JE='),(4,'2010-10-05 19:50:38','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(14 inline comments)\n\n',1696,'AAALy3///JY='),(2,'2010-10-08 13:58:04','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s try that again.',1696,'AAALy3//++A='),(2,'2010-10-08 13:57:49','Uploaded patch set 4.',1696,'AAALy3//++E='),(NULL,'2010-10-08 13:56:36','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1696,'AAALy3//++I='),(2,'2010-10-08 13:56:36','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is good enough in its current state to go in imho.\n\nThanks Mathias.',1696,'AAALy3//++M='),(2,'2010-10-08 13:58:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1696,'AAALy3//+98='),(46,'2010-10-14 07:09:37','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1697,'AAALzH///6A='),(46,'2010-10-14 07:09:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',1697,'AAALzH///6I='),(46,'2010-10-14 07:06:24','Patch Set 1:\n\nThe number of selected files is irrelevant here, since the history framework does not work with multi-selection (see comment in GenericHistoryView).\nThe history view input is always a single resource.\nThe \"Open in Text Editor\" behaves exactly like the \"Open\" in this respect.\nYou may want to look at \nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1729\nwhich proposes a workaround for this limitation.',1697,'AAALzH///6M='),(4,'2010-10-13 22:07:25','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nIf multiple files are selected and then \"Open in Text Editor\" is clicked only the first file version is opened',1697,'AAALzH///6s='),(4,'2010-10-14 21:40:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1697,'AAALzX////0='),(4,'2010-10-14 21:40:32','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',1697,'AAALzX////4='),(4,'2010-10-14 21:39:22','Uploaded patch set 3.',1697,'AAALzX////8='),(46,'2010-10-06 16:39:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1698,'AAALy3///HA='),(46,'2010-10-06 16:39:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Matthias.',1698,'AAALy3///HE='),(2,'2010-10-06 19:12:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1699,'AAALy3///FI='),(2,'2010-10-06 19:12:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.\n\nFixed spelling of \'meaningful\' in the commit message.',1699,'AAALy3///FM='),(2,'2010-10-06 19:10:47','Uploaded patch set 2.',1699,'AAALy3///FQ='),(1,'2010-10-06 17:00:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1699,'AAALy3///Go='),(4,'2010-10-06 16:18:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1699,'AAALy3///H0='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:11:46','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1700,'AAALy3///AE='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:08:27','Patch Set 3:\n\njust rebased',1700,'AAALy3///Ak='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:07:00','Uploaded patch set 3.',1700,'AAALy3///As='),(4,'2010-10-07 22:25:48','Patch Set 2:\n\nseries needs to be rebased',1700,'AAALy3///CE='),(4,'2010-10-07 22:19:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1700,'AAALy3///CM='),(5,'2010-10-07 07:39:28','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1700,'AAALy3///E4='),(5,'2010-10-07 11:53:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',1700,'AAALy3///EA='),(4,'2010-10-06 16:28:05','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1700,'AAALy3///Hk='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:05:11','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1700,'AAALy3//+/g='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:05:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1700,'AAALy3//+/Y='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:09:02','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\njust rebased',1701,'AAALy3///Ag='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:07:00','Uploaded patch set 3.',1701,'AAALy3///Aw='),(4,'2010-10-07 22:25:23','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nseries needs to be rebased',1701,'AAALy3///CI='),(5,'2010-10-07 11:53:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',1701,'AAALy3///EE='),(5,'2010-10-07 11:50:47','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1701,'AAALy3///EQ='),(4,'2010-10-06 16:42:32','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1701,'AAALy3///G4='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:05:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1701,'AAALy3//+/c='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:02:51','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1701,'AAALy3//+/o='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:07:00','Uploaded patch set 3.',1702,'AAALy3///A0='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:09:30','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1702,'AAALy3///Ac='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:11:24','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1702,'AAALy3///AI='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:09:51','Patch Set 3:\n\nrebased and fixed typo',1702,'AAALy3///AY='),(4,'2010-10-07 22:34:58','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n- fix some typos in commit message\n- series needs to be rebased\n- otherwise LGTM',1702,'AAALy3///B8='),(5,'2010-10-07 11:53:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',1702,'AAALy3///EI='),(4,'2010-10-06 16:32:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1702,'AAALy3///Hg='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:09:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1702,'AAALy3//+/I='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:09:34','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nfixed typo in commit message',1702,'AAALy3//+/Q='),(4,'2010-10-08 09:08:37','Uploaded patch set 4.',1702,'AAALy3//+/U='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:07:00','Uploaded patch set 3.',1703,'AAALy3///A4='),(5,'2010-10-08 05:11:00','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\njust rebased',1703,'AAALy3///AM='),(5,'2010-10-07 11:53:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',1703,'AAALy3///EM='),(2,'2010-10-08 19:09:38','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nRebase please.',1703,'AAALy3//+9g='),(NULL,'2010-10-08 19:09:14','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 4 of If7257657, however the current patch set is 5.\n* Depends on commit ae1352a35071314f92ba8a9f85b0c9be4487dfaf which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1703,'AAALy3//+9k='),(2,'2010-10-08 19:09:13','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1703,'AAALy3//+9o='),(5,'2010-10-08 22:00:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1703,'AAALy3//+9Q='),(5,'2010-10-08 22:00:42','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\njust rebased',1703,'AAALy3//+9U='),(5,'2010-10-08 21:58:38','Uploaded patch set 4.',1703,'AAALy3//+9Y='),(1,'2010-10-08 02:01:26','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\nIncomplete review, but I have a feeling some of my comments might be more general across the classes, and its dinner time, so I\'m giving up early...',1704,'AAALy3///BE='),(5,'2010-10-07 22:07:12','Patch Set 3: (10 inline comments)\n\n',1704,'AAALy3///Cc='),(46,'2010-10-07 17:02:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',1704,'AAALy3///Dc='),(5,'2010-10-07 12:49:40','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nI expect that the next changeset would look quite different because we split the different modes into own classes. Therefore I don\'t review fully now.',1704,'AAALy3///Ds='),(46,'2010-10-07 17:07:00','Patch Set 3:\n\nSplit this into several specific commands as suggested by Shawn. Also incorporated a few remarks from Chris Aniszczyk\'s change 1497.',1704,'AAALy3///DU='),(46,'2010-10-07 17:04:06','Uploaded patch set 3.',1704,'AAALy3///DY='),(1,'2010-10-06 17:34:18','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1704,'AAALy3///Fw='),(46,'2010-10-08 12:10:05','Patch Set 3: (15 inline comments)\n\n',1704,'AAALy3//++Q='),(46,'2010-10-08 12:09:29','Uploaded patch set 4.',1704,'AAALy3//++U='),(2,'2010-10-10 20:32:56','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nCan you rebase and fix any merge conflicts.',1704,'AAALy3//+80='),(2,'2010-10-10 20:40:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1704,'AAALy3//+8k='),(2,'2010-10-10 20:40:29','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased and fixed conflicts.\n\nLooks good from my pov, thanks Mathias.',1704,'AAALy3//+8o='),(2,'2010-10-10 20:40:01','Uploaded patch set 6.',1704,'AAALy3//+8s='),(2,'2010-10-10 20:37:35','Uploaded patch set 5.',1704,'AAALy3//+8w='),(2,'2010-10-06 19:06:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1705,'AAALy3///FU='),(2,'2010-10-06 19:06:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCurrently, when EGit is installed nothing appears on the Welcome screen (Help->Welcome). With this fix, you\'ll see some content on the welcome screen now. I didn\'t catch this earlier because if you self-host with PDE, the files are there but not added to the build.properties so you don\'t see this issue until run time.',1705,'AAALy3///FY='),(46,'2010-10-06 17:01:52','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\nCan I test this somehow?',1705,'AAALy3///Gk='),(46,'2010-10-06 16:51:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nThanks Chris.',1706,'AAALy3///Gs='),(1,'2010-10-06 17:15:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1706,'AAALy3///GU='),(1,'2010-10-06 17:15:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1706,'AAALy3///GY='),(1,'2010-10-08 01:47:41','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1707,'AAALy3///Bk='),(4,'2010-10-07 22:10:59','Patch Set 1:\n\nI meant change 1708',1707,'AAALy3///CU='),(4,'2010-10-07 22:10:30','Patch Set 1:\n\nthere seems to be a duplicate change :\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1707\n\nwhich one do you want to keep ?',1707,'AAALy3///CY='),(1,'2010-10-14 20:16:00','Patch Set 2:\n\nUntested, but I think ps 2 does what I want.  We perform the updates only from the main thread, which allows us to continue using the stock pipe streams.',1707,'AAALzH///3A='),(1,'2010-10-14 20:15:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1707,'AAALzH///3E='),(1,'2010-10-14 19:00:40','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1707,'AAALzH///3I='),(89,'2010-10-14 15:07:26','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1707,'AAALzH///3k='),(89,'2010-10-20 07:14:58','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1707,'AAALzX///5Y='),(1,'2010-10-27 15:37:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1707,'AAALzX///tE='),(1,'2010-10-27 15:37:55','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1707,'AAALzX///tI='),(1,'2010-10-27 15:37:48','Uploaded patch set 5.',1707,'AAALzX///tM='),(1,'2010-10-27 15:32:09','Uploaded patch set 4.',1707,'AAALzX///tQ='),(1,'2010-10-26 22:52:16','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nCurrent JGit unit tests pass, so the code is right, right?  :-)',1707,'AAALzX///uY='),(1,'2010-10-26 18:15:10','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1707,'AAALzX///vI='),(1,'2010-10-26 18:15:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',1707,'AAALzX///vM='),(1,'2010-10-08 01:43:10','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nSee change 1707.',1708,'AAALy3///Bw='),(4,'2010-10-07 22:11:18','Patch Set 1:\n\nthere seems to be a duplicate change :\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1707\n\nwhich one do you want to keep ?',1708,'AAALy3///CQ='),(2,'2010-10-07 21:19:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1709,'AAALy3///C0='),(2,'2010-10-07 21:19:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine. Thanks.',1709,'AAALy3///C4='),(1,'2010-10-08 01:49:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1710,'AAALy3///Bc='),(1,'2010-10-08 01:49:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1710,'AAALy3///Bg='),(2,'2010-10-08 14:27:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1711,'AAALy3//+9s='),(2,'2010-10-08 14:27:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1711,'AAALy3//+9w='),(2,'2010-10-08 13:59:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1712,'AAALy3//+90='),(2,'2010-10-08 13:59:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1712,'AAALy3//+94='),(49,'2010-10-09 14:44:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1713,'AAALy3//+84='),(49,'2010-10-09 14:44:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1713,'AAALy3//+88='),(46,'2010-10-11 14:37:48','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nWorks fine. I just wonder if we should offer this without also offering an opportunity to search for the ID. From the coding, it doesn\'t look to difficult to add this.\nI think users would become frustrated if they can see the ID but not search for one...',1714,'AAALy3//+6k='),(46,'2010-10-13 10:34:12','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased to current master and added search functionality as outlined above.',1714,'AAALzH///+0='),(46,'2010-10-13 10:33:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1714,'AAALzH///+4='),(4,'2010-10-15 09:25:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1714,'AAALzX///+A='),(4,'2010-10-15 09:25:32','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- improved commit message',1714,'AAALzX///+E='),(4,'2010-10-15 09:23:58','Uploaded patch set 3.',1714,'AAALzX///+I='),(46,'2010-10-11 14:23:11','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\nWhen I click with compare mode off, I get the merged content which appears correct. However, if compare mode is on, then nothing happens at all... Is this the intended behavior?',1715,'AAALy3//+6o='),(46,'2010-10-13 13:39:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1715,'AAALzH///90='),(46,'2010-10-13 13:37:41','Patch Set 2:\n\nAdded an Info dialog in case a merge commit is selected and uaser double-clicks on file in file list.',1715,'AAALzH///94='),(46,'2010-10-13 13:36:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',1715,'AAALzH///98='),(46,'2010-10-13 13:39:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1715,'AAALzH///9k='),(46,'2010-10-13 13:39:52','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1715,'AAALzH///9o='),(46,'2010-10-13 13:39:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',1715,'AAALzH///9s='),(NULL,'2010-10-13 13:39:06','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1715,'AAALzH///9w='),(1,'2011-04-06 20:09:47','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nThis turns out to be not worth doing. :-\\',1716,'AAAL4H///4I='),(1,'2010-10-09 05:28:14','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI\'ve now tried to:\n\n* Convert PlotWalk to use this\n* Convert the parents member of RevCommit to use this\n* Convert the buffer member of RevCommit to use this\n\nand each time I just run into an incredible amount of pain.  This might not be worth doing at all.\n\nIn the PlotWalk case, we could drop the PlotCommit type, but we need PlotWalk to keep the three DenseAnnotation collections and provide accessors for the data.  Using a single DenseAnnotation with a PlotData object is far more expensive in terms of memory usage because of the extra per-commit object header, so that\'s a non-starter.  It turns out the cleanest implementation I can write is what we have now: PlotWalk overriding the createCommit method to provide its custom PlotCommit subclass of RevCommit.\n\nIn the parents member case this would permit changing the TreeFilter or handling grafts without needing to reparse the graph.  But access became very complicated.  I wound up needing to use Alex\'s idea of a visitor function with an extra level of dispatching, and that was still so ugly that I gave up with 74 unresolved compile errors.  Too much code wants to assume that the parent data from the RevCommit itself is the truth.\n\nIn the buffer member case it was roughly the same thing.  I was trying to remove the buffer member because we often process RevCommits with setRetainBody(false), e.g. during PackWriter we don\'t need the buffer to be retained.  Moving those into an optional DenseAnnotation<byte[]> would mean PackWriter\'s internal ObjectWalk used for enumeration could save 1 reference per enumerated commit.  But too much application code assumes getFullMessage() or getAuthorIdent() on RevCommit is the truth, and these depend on the buffer.\n\nAnd that\'s before I\'ve even had a chance to look at performance impact.  I\'m just talking about the code getting so ugly that I don\'t even want to share it for consideration.  :-(',1716,'AAALy3//+9M='),(2,'2010-10-10 20:41:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1717,'AAALy3//+8c='),(2,'2010-10-10 20:41:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks like a good change.',1717,'AAALy3//+8g='),(1,'2010-10-09 05:44:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nPasses itself, so that\'s good enough for me.  :-)',1717,'AAALy3//+9I='),(1,'2010-10-11 00:34:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1718,'AAALy3//+8A='),(1,'2010-10-11 00:34:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1718,'AAALy3//+8E='),(1,'2010-10-11 18:36:53','Patch Set 1:\n\nWe probably could build a unit test, but we\'re about to delete the implementation.  I don\'t want to waste time developing a test case for a corner condition that I don\'t yet understand if we\'re just about to drop the whole thing anyway.  :-)\n\n(I found this bug very quickly in the debugger by pausing the JVM when I noticed the test was running for a long time... a few steps and I realized what was wrong, so I fixed it, but I haven\'t looked at *why* it happened.)\n\nSo I\'m either offering this change as-is, or I\'ll drop the change from my series altogether.  Because either way I\'m deleting PatienceDiff.  It runs slower than HistogramDiff does for common inputs because it winds up needing to fall back onto HistogramDiff or MyersDiff too often.',1719,'AAALy3//+6g='),(2,'2010-10-11 19:00:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1719,'AAALy3//+6M='),(2,'2010-10-11 19:00:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI\'m fine with this going in as history.',1719,'AAALy3//+6U='),(5,'2010-10-11 08:41:46','Patch Set 1:\n\nCan\'t we derive a test case from this? I always have problems finding good tests for the corners of diff/merge.',1719,'AAALy3//+7k='),(5,'2010-10-11 19:00:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1720,'AAALy3//+6Q='),(1,'2010-10-11 18:45:17','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1720,'AAALy3//+6Y='),(5,'2010-10-11 08:30:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1720,'AAALy3//+7o='),(1,'2010-10-11 19:42:12','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\nThanks for the comments, I\'ll upload a replacement in a few minutes.',1721,'AAALy3//+50='),(2,'2010-10-11 21:18:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1721,'AAALy3//+5c='),(2,'2010-10-11 21:24:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1721,'AAALy3//+5E='),(2,'2010-10-11 21:24:39','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1721,'AAALy3//+5M='),(1,'2010-10-11 19:58:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',1721,'AAALy3//+5o='),(2,'2010-10-11 21:20:21','Uploaded patch set 3.',1721,'AAALy3//+5Q='),(NULL,'2010-10-11 21:18:26','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1721,'AAALy3//+5Y='),(5,'2010-10-11 11:43:35','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\nWe really needed this possibility to test diff-performance easily on real-world data. I like it. But took me some time to understand the printed data - so I suggested some clarification on the format of the output.',1721,'AAALy3//+7E='),(4,'2010-10-13 22:19:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1722,'AAALzH///6g='),(4,'2010-10-13 22:19:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed some typos in commit message',1722,'AAALzH///6k='),(4,'2010-10-13 22:18:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',1722,'AAALzH///6o='),(1,'2010-10-11 01:51:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1723,'AAALy3//+74='),(1,'2010-10-11 01:51:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nToo simple and too stupid of a bug fix to bother waiting for a review on.  :-)',1723,'AAALy3//+78='),(1,'2010-10-12 05:50:41','Patch Set 3:\n\nI\'m reasonably happy with this now.  We don\'t always need to create the base cache.  When we do, we should be pretty good at detecting data corruption before it spreads further.\n\nThe missing part is cleaning up the delta-base-cache directory automatically, so users don\'t need to do housekeeping.',1724,'AAALy3//+4c='),(1,'2010-10-12 05:44:12','Uploaded patch set 3.',1724,'AAALy3//+4g='),(1,'2010-10-12 03:25:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',1724,'AAALy3//+4k='),(1,'2010-10-11 04:35:51','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis is a simple proof of concept to see if the idea of using RandomAccessFile to read from the base when applying a delta is suitable.  If it is we need to add robustness checks to validate the base isn\'t corrupted, and we need to have some sort of mechanism to clear out less useful entries from the cache.',1724,'AAALy3//+70='),(1,'2010-10-14 20:21:22','Patch Set 3: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1724,'AAALzH///20='),(3,'2010-10-13 20:20:46','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nCan we do something with a gc to clean this up after a period of time?',1724,'AAALzH///8U='),(1,'2011-05-31 15:45:07','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nBased on what C Git is doing, I think this will not be necessary. The C Git approach for big files is to avoid delta compression on them, thus avoiding the need to handle large delta streams.',1724,'AABOJn///t8='),(46,'2010-10-12 16:39:20','Uploaded patch set 7.',1725,'AAALy3//+20='),(46,'2010-10-12 15:54:22','Uploaded patch set 6.',1725,'AAALy3//+28='),(46,'2010-10-12 16:39:57','Patch Set 7:\n\nScrollbar was because of wrong style bit.',1725,'AAALy3//+2w='),(46,'2010-10-12 15:37:14','Uploaded patch set 5.',1725,'AAALy3//+3c='),(46,'2010-10-12 15:37:37','Patch Set 4: (5 inline comments)\n\n',1725,'AAALy3//+3Y='),(44,'2010-10-12 14:37:59','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\nSee inline comments.\nSome UI issues/proposals:\n1. Result dialog has no title\n2. 4 lines would be enough for fetch result table\n3. Fetch Result and Merge Result could be grouped using frames with title \"fetch result\" and \"merge result\"',1725,'AAALy3//+4E='),(46,'2010-10-11 13:09:02','Uploaded patch set 4.',1725,'AAALy3//+60='),(5,'2010-10-11 12:14:57','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1725,'AAALy3//+64='),(5,'2010-10-11 08:24:31','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1725,'AAALy3//+7s='),(46,'2010-10-11 11:28:21','Uploaded patch set 3.',1725,'AAALy3//+7U='),(46,'2010-10-11 11:25:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',1725,'AAALy3//+7Y='),(44,'2010-10-13 08:34:52','Uploaded patch set 8.',1725,'AAALzH////c='),(NULL,'2010-10-13 08:28:26','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1725,'AAALzH////g='),(44,'2010-10-13 08:27:33','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. Great improvement.',1725,'AAALzH////k='),(44,'2010-10-13 08:35:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1725,'AAALzH////U='),(44,'2010-10-13 08:35:44','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased to current master',1725,'AAALzH////Y='),(46,'2010-10-11 14:09:48','Uploaded patch set 3.',1726,'AAALy3//+6s='),(46,'2010-10-11 13:18:06','Uploaded patch set 2.',1726,'AAALy3//+6w='),(4,'2010-10-14 09:32:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1726,'AAALzH///5g='),(4,'2010-10-14 09:31:20','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- externalized error messages',1726,'AAALzH///5k='),(4,'2010-10-14 09:28:44','Uploaded patch set 4.',1726,'AAALzH///5s='),(1,'2010-10-12 19:21:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1727,'AAALy3//+10='),(1,'2010-10-12 19:23:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1727,'AAALy3//+1k='),(1,'2010-10-12 19:23:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1727,'AAALy3//+1o='),(1,'2010-10-12 19:23:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1727,'AAALy3//+1s='),(NULL,'2010-10-12 19:21:40','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1727,'AAALy3//+1w='),(44,'2010-10-12 16:06:01','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1728,'AAALy3//+24='),(2,'2010-10-12 18:11:04','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks better.',1728,'AAALy3//+2c='),(2,'2010-10-12 18:11:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1728,'AAALy3//+2Y='),(46,'2010-10-12 15:52:53','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1728,'AAALy3//+3A='),(44,'2010-10-12 15:25:51','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1728,'AAALy3//+3g='),(46,'2010-10-12 15:51:57','Uploaded patch set 3.',1728,'AAALy3//+3Q='),(46,'2010-10-12 15:50:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',1728,'AAALy3//+3U='),(46,'2010-10-14 08:48:53','Patch Set 2:\n\nFound a problem when opening the context menu. Rebased to current master.',1729,'AAALzH///54='),(46,'2010-10-14 08:48:02','Uploaded patch set 2.',1729,'AAALzH///58='),(4,'2010-10-14 22:04:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1729,'AAALzX////o='),(4,'2010-10-14 22:04:36','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- resolved conflicts',1729,'AAALzX////s='),(4,'2010-10-14 22:02:59','Uploaded patch set 3.',1729,'AAALzX////w='),(2,'2010-10-12 19:15:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1730,'AAALy3//+18='),(2,'2010-10-12 19:15:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNice!',1730,'AAALy3//+2A='),(2,'2010-10-12 18:09:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1731,'AAALy3//+2g='),(2,'2010-10-12 18:09:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1731,'AAALy3//+2o='),(4,'2010-10-12 18:09:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1732,'AAALy3//+2k='),(4,'2010-10-12 17:52:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1732,'AAALy3//+2s='),(2,'2010-10-12 18:56:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1733,'AAALy3//+2Q='),(2,'2010-10-12 18:56:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1733,'AAALy3//+2U='),(1,'2010-10-12 19:31:00','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',1734,'AAALy3//+1M='),(5,'2010-10-13 09:32:06','Patch Set 1: (5 inline comments)\n\n',1734,'AAALzH////I='),(5,'2010-10-13 09:31:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1734,'AAALzH////M='),(1,'2010-10-15 00:52:36','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\n',1734,'AAALzX///+g='),(5,'2010-10-15 14:41:21','Patch Set 2: (5 inline comments)\n\n',1734,'AAALzX///9o='),(5,'2010-10-15 14:41:02','Uploaded patch set 3.',1734,'AAALzX///9s='),(1,'2010-10-15 19:48:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1734,'AAALzX///9U='),(1,'2010-10-15 19:48:01','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1734,'AAALzX///9Y='),(2,'2010-10-13 12:20:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems fine.',1735,'AAALzH///+c='),(46,'2010-10-13 12:40:11','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased to current master.',1735,'AAALzH///+Q='),(46,'2010-10-13 12:39:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',1735,'AAALzH///+U='),(NULL,'2010-10-13 12:20:17','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1735,'AAALzH///+Y='),(2,'2010-10-13 16:11:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s do it.',1735,'AAALzH///9c='),(2,'2010-10-13 16:11:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1735,'AAALzH///9Y='),(17,'2010-10-14 10:08:54','Patch Set 2:\n\nReformatted code to JGit conventions. Also updated project settings.',1736,'AAALzH///5U='),(17,'2010-10-14 10:07:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',1736,'AAALzH///5Y='),(4,'2010-10-13 21:51:47','Patch Set 1:\n\nI recommend to always have the gerrit Change-Id in the commit message, this helps to avoid trouble when pushing a second patch-set. You may either generate it using the Change-Id checkbox in EGit (hope you commit using EGit :-) or by installing the commit message hook as described in the contributor guide. To update this change manually copy the Change-Id tag from gerrit into the amended commit before pushing it to gerrit. Otherwise you will end up with a second change in review instead of a second patchset for the same change.',1736,'AAALzH///60='),(4,'2010-10-13 21:43:34','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(22 inline comments)\n\n- please format according to project conventions (see contributor guide)\n- I can\'t compile this new bundle in eclipse, seems I miss some plugins, explain what is needed. This should later also be described in the contributor guide so that eclipse setup for contributors is always clear\n-in general we look for compatibility with java 1.5 and eclipse 3.5.2 upwards (not sure if that is needed for PDE build)\n- please add a test',1736,'AAALzH///64='),(3,'2010-10-13 18:16:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\nSome minor nitpicks but otherwise looks good.',1736,'AAALzH///80='),(17,'2010-10-13 18:58:12','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\nThanks for review! Answers inline.',1736,'AAALzH///8g='),(17,'2010-10-21 08:39:39','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nreplaced by change 1776 in egit-pde',1736,'AAALzX///48='),(17,'2010-10-18 19:42:40','Patch Set 3:\n\nIncorporated feedback from PDE team receive on Bugzilla.',1736,'AAALzX///70='),(17,'2010-10-18 19:41:48','Uploaded patch set 3.',1736,'AAALzX///74='),(17,'2010-10-14 10:07:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',1737,'AAALzH///5c='),(17,'2010-10-14 10:09:41','Patch Set 2:\n\nReformatted to JGit conventions. \n\nBTW, How do I get rid of the dependency? It isn\'t really necessary.',1737,'AAALzH///5Q='),(17,'2010-10-21 08:52:14','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nreplaced by 1777 (egit-pde)',1737,'AAALzX///44='),(4,'2010-10-19 15:36:38','Patch Set 3:\n\ne.g. you may create a new topic branch based on up-to-date origin/master and then cherry-pick this commit into the new topic branch',1737,'AAALzX///68='),(17,'2010-10-18 19:16:40','Uploaded patch set 3.',1737,'AAALzX///8A='),(2,'2010-10-13 12:15:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1738,'AAALzH///+g='),(2,'2010-10-13 12:15:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nMakes sense.',1738,'AAALzH///+k='),(4,'2010-10-13 13:33:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',1739,'AAALzH///+A='),(2,'2010-10-13 16:17:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1739,'AAALzH///9Q='),(2,'2010-10-13 16:17:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1739,'AAALzH///9U='),(46,'2010-10-14 14:21:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1740,'AAALzH///34='),(46,'2010-10-14 14:21:19','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1740,'AAALzH///38='),(9,'2010-10-14 12:21:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',1740,'AAALzH///5I='),(4,'2010-10-14 11:25:50','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI propose we omit the redundant \"Branches\" in \"Local Branches\" and \"Remote Tracking Branches\", so we would end up with:\n\nBranches\n- Local\n-- master\n- Remote Tracking\n-- origin/master',1740,'AAALzH///5M='),(46,'2010-10-14 06:31:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI have no reservations, except that all our screenshots in the documentation will become outdated...\nLet\'s get a third opinion -> Matthias?',1740,'AAALzH///6Q='),(2,'2010-10-13 16:07:58','Patch Set 1:\n\nHrmmm... I don\'t mind this but it seems like a lot of extra text for something that is obvious to me. What else do people think they are?',1740,'AAALzH///9g='),(2,'2010-10-14 13:56:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1741,'AAALzH///4s='),(2,'2010-10-14 13:56:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1741,'AAALzH///4w='),(2,'2010-10-14 13:59:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1742,'AAALzH///4k='),(2,'2010-10-14 13:59:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood catch and thanks for the fix.',1742,'AAALzH///4o='),(1,'2010-10-14 03:58:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThis fixes the server bug you noticed when viewing  org.eclipse.jgit/pom.xml in change 1739.   (I haven\'t yet rebuilt the server with this fix.)',1742,'AAALzH///6U='),(2,'2010-10-14 14:00:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1743,'AAALzH///4c='),(2,'2010-10-14 14:00:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks reasonable.',1743,'AAALzH///4g='),(2,'2010-10-14 14:01:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1744,'AAALzH///4U='),(2,'2010-10-14 14:01:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood call.',1744,'AAALzH///4Y='),(4,'2010-10-14 12:42:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1745,'AAALzH///44='),(4,'2010-10-14 12:42:27','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- resolved conflicts',1745,'AAALzH///48='),(44,'2010-10-14 09:11:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',1745,'AAALzH///50='),(4,'2010-10-14 12:41:59','Uploaded patch set 4.',1745,'AAALzH///5A='),(4,'2010-10-14 12:40:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',1745,'AAALzH///5E='),(44,'2010-10-14 09:29:01','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nPatch Set 2 also fixes the checkout issue.',1745,'AAALzH///5o='),(44,'2010-10-14 09:23:20','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. But there is another issue in GitRepositoriesViewRemoteHandlingTest. Checkout job needs to be joined.',1745,'AAALzH///5w='),(4,'2010-10-14 22:28:23','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- transfered copyright for Robin from deleted class to GitPreferencePage',1746,'AAALzX////c='),(4,'2010-10-14 22:26:48','Uploaded patch set 3.',1746,'AAALzX////g='),(4,'2010-10-14 22:20:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',1746,'AAALzX////k='),(4,'2010-10-14 22:28:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1746,'AAALzX////Y='),(1,'2010-10-15 00:43:42','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',1747,'AAALzX///+8='),(46,'2010-10-19 06:28:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1747,'AAALzX///7g='),(46,'2010-10-19 06:57:53','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1747,'AAALzX///7I='),(46,'2010-10-19 06:54:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',1747,'AAALzX///7Q='),(1,'2010-10-28 16:16:11','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\nRather than keep this review hanging, I\'m going to cherry-pick it and introduce the local variable.',1747,'AAALzX///q0='),(1,'2010-10-28 16:37:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1747,'AAALzX///qk='),(1,'2010-10-28 16:37:56','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1747,'AAALzX///qo='),(1,'2010-10-28 16:37:51','Uploaded patch set 4.',1747,'AAALzX///qs='),(44,'2010-10-14 14:39:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',1748,'AAALzH///30='),(46,'2010-10-14 15:03:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1748,'AAALzH///3s='),(46,'2010-10-14 15:02:55','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1748,'AAALzH///3w='),(44,'2010-10-14 14:18:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',1748,'AAALzH///4A='),(46,'2010-10-14 14:08:38','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nJust style...',1748,'AAALzH///4M='),(46,'2010-10-14 15:36:44','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1749,'AAALzH///3c='),(44,'2010-10-14 15:23:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',1749,'AAALzH///3g='),(46,'2010-10-14 15:36:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1749,'AAALzH///3Y='),(46,'2010-10-14 15:49:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1750,'AAALzH///3Q='),(46,'2010-10-14 15:49:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCool.',1750,'AAALzH///3U='),(46,'2010-10-15 05:59:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',1751,'AAALzX///+Y='),(4,'2010-10-19 22:43:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1751,'AAALzX///6k='),(4,'2010-10-19 22:43:11','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1751,'AAALzX///6o='),(4,'2010-10-19 22:42:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',1751,'AAALzX///6s='),(4,'2010-10-14 23:21:27','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\non Mac I get 6 UI test failures with this change, some maybe duplicates of what the failures I reported in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=327829\n\n\norg.eclipse.egit.ui--All tests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.AllTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.AllLocalTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.AllRepositoriesViewTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest\ntestCheckoutRemote(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find menu: [Checkout]\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper.clickContextMenu(ContextMenuHelper.java:67)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest.testCheckoutRemote(GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest.java:218)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)\n\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest\ntestImportWizard(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find menu: [Import Projects...]\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper.clickContextMenu(ContextMenuHelper.java:67)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest.testImportWizard(GitRepositoriesViewTest.java:230)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)\n\ntestImportWizardGeneralProject(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: The widget was null.\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBot.<init>(AbstractSWTBot.java:96)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBotControl.<init>(AbstractSWTBotControl.java:47)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotShell.<init>(SWTBotShell.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotShell.<init>(SWTBotShell.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.activeShell(SWTBotFactory.java:341)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.menu(SWTBotFactory.java:208)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.menu(SWTBotFactory.java:198)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTestBase.getOrOpenView(GitRepositoriesViewTestBase.java:235)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest.testImportWizardGeneralProject(GitRepositoriesViewTest.java:261)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)\n\ntestImportWizardGeneralProjectWithWorkingSet(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: The widget was null.\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBot.<init>(AbstractSWTBot.java:96)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBotControl.<init>(AbstractSWTBotControl.java:47)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotShell.<init>(SWTBotShell.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotShell.<init>(SWTBotShell.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.activeShell(SWTBotFactory.java:341)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.menu(SWTBotFactory.java:208)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.menu(SWTBotFactory.java:198)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTestBase.getOrOpenView(GitRepositoriesViewTestBase.java:235)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest.testImportWizardGeneralProjectWithWorkingSet(GitRepositoriesViewTest.java:313)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)\n\ntestImportWizardGeneralProjectManualShareCancel(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: The widget was null.\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBot.<init>(AbstractSWTBot.java:96)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBotControl.<init>(AbstractSWTBotControl.java:47)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotShell.<init>(SWTBotShell.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotShell.<init>(SWTBotShell.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.activeShell(SWTBotFactory.java:341)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.menu(SWTBotFactory.java:208)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.menu(SWTBotFactory.java:198)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTestBase.getOrOpenView(GitRepositoriesViewTestBase.java:235)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest.testImportWizardGeneralProjectManualShareCancel(GitRepositoriesViewTest.java:370)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)\n\ntestImportWizardGeneralProjectManualShareOk(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: The widget was null.\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBot.<init>(AbstractSWTBot.java:96)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBotControl.<init>(AbstractSWTBotControl.java:47)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotShell.<init>(SWTBotShell.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotShell.<init>(SWTBotShell.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.activeShell(SWTBotFactory.java:341)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.menu(SWTBotFactory.java:208)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.menu(SWTBotFactory.java:198)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTestBase.getOrOpenView(GitRepositoriesViewTestBase.java:235)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest.testImportWizardGeneralProjectManualShareOk(GitRepositoriesViewTest.java:404)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)\n\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.AllTeamActionTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.FetchAndMergeActionTest\ntestFetchFromOriginThenMerge(org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.FetchAndMergeActionTest)\njava.lang.AssertionError: \n	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:91)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:43)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertFalse(Assert.java:68)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertFalse(Assert.java:79)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.FetchAndMergeActionTest.testFetchFromOriginThenMerge(FetchAndMergeActionTest.java:124)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)',1752,'AAALzX////Q='),(4,'2010-10-26 14:07:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1752,'AAALzX///vo='),(4,'2010-10-26 14:07:12','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased on current master\n- verified on MaxOSX 10.6.4',1752,'AAALzX///vs='),(4,'2010-10-26 14:05:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1752,'AAALzX///vw='),(44,'2010-10-26 08:52:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',1752,'AAALzX///wk='),(44,'2010-10-26 09:20:28','Patch Set 2:\n\nWorks on Win7 and Linux.\n@Matthias: please check on Mac.',1752,'AAALzX///wY='),(4,'2010-10-15 08:48:17','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n- I would prefer \"Show in History\" to make this more consistent with the team menu\n- could we use potentially available selection in e.g. package explorer as filter input ?\n- TODO in OpenHistoryCommand needs to be done to handle exception properly',1753,'AAALzX///+M='),(46,'2010-10-15 05:59:53','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nNeed to rebase',1753,'AAALzX///+U='),(4,'2010-10-17 22:08:34','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI tried with two repositories and found the following scenario to fail:\n- show history for first repository\n- in repositories view select second repository and click \"Open in History\"\n- the History View gets the focus but the history is not switched to the one for the second repository, instead still the history of the first repository is displayed.\n\n- can we rename the context menu entry to \"Show in History\" instead of \"Open in History\" to make this consistent with the entry in the team menu ?\n\n- could you split the change into several ones ? Looks like changing to use Preference actions and adjusting handlers to deal with File are independent from the rest.',1753,'AAALzX///88='),(46,'2010-10-18 17:35:55','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nSplit into changes 1762, 1763, 1764, 1766, and 1767.',1753,'AAALzX///8E='),(46,'2010-10-15 16:41:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',1753,'AAALzX///9k='),(4,'2010-10-14 22:47:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',1754,'AAALzX////U='),(2,'2010-10-19 04:32:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1754,'AAALzX///7k='),(2,'2010-10-19 04:32:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1754,'AAALzX///7o='),(5,'2010-10-17 22:19:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1755,'AAALzX///84='),(5,'2010-10-17 22:21:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1755,'AAALzX///8o='),(5,'2010-10-17 22:21:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1755,'AAALzX///8s='),(5,'2010-10-17 22:20:24','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1755,'AAALzX///8w='),(1,'2010-10-15 19:46:13','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nCode looks good though.  :-)',1755,'AAALzX///9c='),(4,'2010-10-17 21:56:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1756,'AAALzX///9A='),(4,'2010-10-17 21:56:23','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1756,'AAALzX///9E='),(4,'2010-10-17 21:55:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1756,'AAALzX///9I='),(4,'2010-10-17 22:21:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1757,'AAALzX///8g='),(4,'2010-10-17 22:21:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1757,'AAALzX///8k='),(1,'2010-10-17 04:47:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',1757,'AAALzX///9Q='),(4,'2010-10-19 22:52:05','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1758,'AAALzX///6c='),(4,'2010-10-19 22:51:34','Uploaded patch set 3.',1758,'AAALzX///6g='),(4,'2010-10-19 22:52:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1758,'AAALzX///6Y='),(1,'2010-10-17 04:47:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',1758,'AAALzX///9M='),(4,'2010-10-18 15:36:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1759,'AAALzX///8Q='),(4,'2010-10-18 15:36:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1759,'AAALzX///8U='),(2,'2010-10-19 04:28:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1760,'AAALzX///7s='),(2,'2010-10-19 04:28:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1760,'AAALzX///7w='),(46,'2010-10-18 14:43:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1761,'AAALzX///8c='),(46,'2010-10-18 14:43:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1761,'AAALzX///8Y='),(4,'2010-10-19 23:20:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1762,'AAALzX///6M='),(4,'2010-10-19 23:20:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed typo in commit message',1762,'AAALzX///6Q='),(4,'2010-10-19 23:19:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',1762,'AAALzX///6U='),(4,'2010-10-19 23:41:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1763,'AAALzX///6A='),(4,'2010-10-19 23:41:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- added Change-Id',1763,'AAALzX///6E='),(4,'2010-10-19 23:38:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',1763,'AAALzX///6I='),(4,'2010-10-19 23:56:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1764,'AAALzX///50='),(4,'2010-10-19 23:56:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1764,'AAALzX///54='),(4,'2010-10-19 23:55:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',1764,'AAALzX///58='),(46,'2010-10-18 16:59:19','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nMissing ChangeId',1765,'AAALzX///8M='),(4,'2010-10-21 22:22:48','Uploaded patch set 4.',1766,'AAALzX///30='),(4,'2010-10-21 22:24:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1766,'AAALzX///3s='),(4,'2010-10-21 22:24:25','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nfixed typo',1766,'AAALzX///3w='),(46,'2010-10-20 06:35:56','Patch Set 3:\n\nOops... The two BooleanPrefActions must be added to the list\nof actions to dispose... Should work now.',1766,'AAALzX///5k='),(46,'2010-10-20 06:33:52','Uploaded patch set 3.',1766,'AAALzX///5o='),(4,'2010-10-20 00:10:02','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- rebased to current master\n\n- on egit repository I opened the history view\n   then I clicked the compare mode toggle button so that it\'s down\n   then I clicked the show all branches toggle button\n   this throws an error :\n\n!MESSAGE Problems occurred when invoking code from plug-in: \"org.eclipse.ui.workbench\".\n!STACK 0\norg.eclipse.swt.SWTException: Widget is disposed\n	at org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:4083)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:3998)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:3969)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.error(Widget.java:715)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.checkWidget(Widget.java:531)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Control.getParent(Control.java:1615)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage.setErrorMessage(GitHistoryPage.java:1234)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage.inputSet(GitHistoryPage.java:1003)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage.refresh(GitHistoryPage.java:975)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage$3.apply(GitHistoryPage.java:383)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage$BooleanPrefAction.propertyChange(GitHistoryPage.java:1492)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.preferences.ScopedPreferenceStore$3.run(ScopedPreferenceStore.java:375)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.SafeRunner.run(SafeRunner.java:42)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.preferences.ScopedPreferenceStore.firePropertyChangeEvent(ScopedPreferenceStore.java:372)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.preferences.ScopedPreferenceStore.setValue(ScopedPreferenceStore.java:813)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage$BooleanPrefAction.run(GitHistoryPage.java:1476)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.Action.runWithEvent(Action.java:498)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem.handleWidgetSelection(ActionContributionItem.java:584)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem.access$2(ActionContributionItem.java:501)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem$6.handleEvent(ActionContributionItem.java:452)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.EventTable.sendEvent(EventTable.java:84)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.sendEvent(Display.java:3776)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1367)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1390)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1375)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.notifyListeners(Widget.java:1187)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.runDeferredEvents(Display.java:3622)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3277)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runEventLoop(Workbench.java:2629)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runUI(Workbench.java:2593)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.access$4(Workbench.java:2427)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench$7.run(Workbench.java:670)\n	at org.eclipse.core.databinding.observable.Realm.runWithDefault(Realm.java:332)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.createAndRunWorkbench(Workbench.java:663)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.PlatformUI.createAndRunWorkbench(PlatformUI.java:149)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ide.application.IDEApplication.start(IDEApplication.java:115)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.app.EclipseAppHandle.run(EclipseAppHandle.java:196)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.runApplication(EclipseAppLauncher.java:110)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.start(EclipseAppLauncher.java:79)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:369)\n	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:179)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.invokeFramework(Main.java:619)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.basicRun(Main.java:574)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.run(Main.java:1407)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.main(Main.java:1383)',1766,'AAALzX///5s='),(4,'2010-10-20 00:08:22','Uploaded patch set 2.',1766,'AAALzX///5w='),(4,'2010-10-21 23:25:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1767,'AAALzX///3g='),(4,'2010-10-21 23:25:29','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased onto current master\n- improved message to \"building commit list for repository xyz\"',1767,'AAALzX///3k='),(4,'2010-10-21 23:23:23','Uploaded patch set 4.',1767,'AAALzX///3o='),(46,'2010-10-20 07:14:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',1767,'AAALzX///5c='),(46,'2010-10-20 07:16:07','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebased onto ancestor.',1767,'AAALzX///5U='),(46,'2010-10-18 17:34:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1767,'AAALzX///8I='),(17,'2010-10-18 19:22:28','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nhmm ... I just did a \"git pull\" followed by a \"git push review\" to re-submit an amended commit. Did not want to create a new change set.',1768,'AAALzX///78='),(2,'2010-10-19 14:21:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1769,'AAALzX///7A='),(2,'2010-10-19 14:21:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1769,'AAALzX///7E='),(2,'2010-10-23 17:12:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1770,'AAALzX///18='),(2,'2010-10-22 22:47:14','Uploaded patch set 3.',1770,'AAALzX///20='),(2,'2010-10-23 17:12:14','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good!',1770,'AAALzX///2A='),(4,'2010-10-23 10:30:06','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI now understand why you wanted to use the snapshot version for the findbugs plugin [1]. The version 2.3.2 only works with maven 3.0 beta 3 but fails with the maven 3.0 version which has been released recently.\n\nHence I added the codehaus snapshot repository to enable using the maven-findbugs-2.3.2-SNAPSHOT version which fixes the problem.\n\n[1] http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MFINDBUGS-122',1770,'AAALzX///2M='),(4,'2010-10-23 10:27:17','Uploaded patch set 5.',1770,'AAALzX///2Q='),(2,'2010-10-22 22:47:56','Uploaded patch set 4.',1770,'AAALzX///2w='),(2,'2010-10-19 17:23:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',1770,'AAALzX///64='),(4,'2010-10-19 22:11:47','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n- build fails since it can\'t find the specified SNAPSHOT version of the findbugs plugin\n- we should only depend on released plugin versions\n- plugin versions and their configuration should be defined in the plugin management section of the parent pom to prevent redundant configuration and problems caused by different plugin versions used by different individual poms',1770,'AAALzX///6w='),(4,'2010-11-04 22:37:40','Uploaded patch set 5.',1771,'AAALzn///7c='),(4,'2010-11-04 22:39:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1771,'AAALzn///7U='),(4,'2010-11-04 22:39:05','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased onto current master\n- verified on Mac, tests pass successfully',1771,'AAALzn///7Y='),(46,'2010-11-02 11:18:23','Uploaded patch set 4.',1771,'AAALzn///9c='),(46,'2010-11-02 13:31:24','Patch Set 4:\n\nUploaded a stripped version (without changes in the test\nclasses). I was not able to reproduce the issues on Windows or Linux. Perhaps we should have another look at Mac...',1771,'AAALzn///9U='),(4,'2010-10-29 09:54:47','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed a typo\n- I like the feature :-)\n\n- are the test adjustments a direct consequence of introducing the feature implemented here ?\n\n- ui tests aren\'t stable on MacOSX, I ran them 4 times, they only succeeded once, here the failures for the other 3 runs:\n\n#1:\ntestPushToOrigin(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewFetchAndPushTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find menu: [Push]\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper.clickContextMenu(ContextMenuHelper.java:67)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewFetchAndPushTest.testPushToOrigin(GitRepositoriesViewFetchAndPushTest.java:150)\n\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.history.HistoryViewTest\ntestOpenHistoryOnFileFolderFilter(org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.history.HistoryViewTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find menu: [Show In, History]\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper.clickContextMenu(ContextMenuHelper.java:67)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.history.HistoryViewTest.getHistoryViewTable(HistoryViewTest.java:256)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.history.HistoryViewTest.testOpenHistoryOnFileFolderFilter(HistoryViewTest.java:167)\n\n#2:\ntestCreateDeleteLocalBranchWithUnmerged(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find menu: [Checkout]\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper.clickContextMenu(ContextMenuHelper.java:67)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest.testCreateDeleteLocalBranchWithUnmerged(GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest.java:205)\n\n#3:\ntestCreateDeleteLocalBranchWithUnmerged(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find menu: [Checkout]\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper.clickContextMenu(ContextMenuHelper.java:67)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest.testCreateDeleteLocalBranchWithUnmerged(GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest.java:205)\n\n- please also verify on Linux to prevent that we destabilize ui tests',1771,'AAALzX///o0='),(4,'2010-10-29 09:52:37','Uploaded patch set 3.',1771,'AAALzX///o4='),(46,'2010-10-25 12:39:22','Uploaded patch set 2.',1771,'AAALzX///zo='),(1,'2010-10-24 17:08:53','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1772,'AAALzX///04='),(1,'2010-10-25 03:00:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1772,'AAALzX///0c='),(1,'2010-10-25 03:00:44','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1772,'AAALzX///0g='),(5,'2010-10-24 22:42:36','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1772,'AAALzX///0k='),(5,'2010-10-24 22:41:59','Uploaded patch set 3.',1772,'AAALzX///0s='),(1,'2010-10-23 19:00:48','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1772,'AAALzX///10='),(5,'2010-10-24 14:00:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1772,'AAALzX///1E='),(5,'2010-10-23 11:55:59','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1772,'AAALzX///2E='),(1,'2010-10-23 07:30:19','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1772,'AAALzX///2U='),(5,'2010-10-21 22:05:48','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1772,'AAALzX///34='),(5,'2010-10-22 13:31:02','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1772,'AAALzX///3Q='),(1,'2010-10-22 00:48:48','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1772,'AAALzX///3Y='),(1,'2010-10-21 17:49:26','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1772,'AAALzX///4U='),(5,'2010-10-24 22:42:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',1773,'AAALzX///0o='),(46,'2010-10-25 06:46:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1773,'AAALzX///0U='),(46,'2010-10-25 06:46:52','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1773,'AAALzX///0Y='),(5,'2010-10-23 20:53:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nI see from your comment that you have a change which renames the node to \"named refs\". I would prefer \"Refs\", the common thing among these refs is not that they are named, but that they are all refs which are no branches and no tags. Hard to find a good name - so I would just call them Refs.\n\nThis proposal has nothing to do how to name the node but how to get the additional nodes from JGit. Since we are currently changing that part in JGit I suggest that I fix here only the JGit dependent part and that you independently do the renaming and enabling of actions on these refs.',1773,'AAALzX///1o='),(46,'2010-10-22 14:41:47','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI have prepared a change which also renames the parent to\n\"Named References\" and allows for checking out and creation on\nbranches on these references.\nThis is independent from the JGit changes, and I\'ll upload this to Gerrit as soon as I have access again.',1773,'AAALzX///28='),(2,'2010-10-21 13:31:11','Patch Set 2:\n\nAs a future note, if there\'s \"[DRAFT]\" in the commit message, please remove it before pushing to the master repository.',1774,'AAALzX///40='),(17,'2010-10-21 07:04:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1774,'AAALzX///5I='),(17,'2010-10-21 07:04:54','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1774,'AAALzX///5M='),(4,'2010-10-20 23:41:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',1774,'AAALzX///5Q='),(17,'2010-10-21 08:01:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1775,'AAALzX///5A='),(17,'2010-10-21 08:01:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1775,'AAALzX///5E='),(17,'2010-10-25 13:06:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nAs discussed in the bug.',1776,'AAALzX///zc='),(17,'2010-10-25 13:06:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1776,'AAALzX///zY='),(2,'2010-10-25 20:38:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1777,'AAALzX///xk='),(2,'2010-10-25 20:38:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is good for the first cut.',1777,'AAALzX///xo='),(2,'2010-10-25 20:34:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',1777,'AAALzX///xs='),(46,'2010-10-22 14:39:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1778,'AAALzX///3A='),(46,'2010-10-22 14:39:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1778,'AAALzX///3E='),(5,'2010-10-25 08:59:33','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\nOnly one minor enhancement. Otherwise it\'s ok for me.',1779,'AAALzX///0E='),(44,'2010-10-25 08:47:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',1779,'AAALzX///0Q='),(44,'2010-10-21 15:45:38','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nPrerequisite for http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1780',1779,'AAALzX///4c='),(1,'2010-10-21 17:58:39','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1779,'AAALzX///4E='),(1,'2010-10-21 17:53:53','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1779,'AAALzX///4M='),(44,'2010-10-25 11:02:49','Uploaded patch set 3.',1779,'AAALzX///z4='),(5,'2010-10-25 12:38:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1779,'AAALzX///zs='),(5,'2010-10-25 12:37:24','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1779,'AAALzX///zw='),(44,'2010-10-25 08:48:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',1780,'AAALzX///0M='),(5,'2010-10-22 13:54:36','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1780,'AAALzX///3I='),