(6,'2010-04-16 09:43:11','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',533,'AAAAA3///qU='),(6,'2010-04-16 09:42:38','Uploaded patch set 4.',533,'AAAAA3///qY='),(6,'2010-04-15 09:07:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',533,'AAAAA3///r4='),(6,'2010-04-15 09:07:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',533,'AAAAA3///r8='),(6,'2010-04-15 07:06:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',533,'AAAAA3///so='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:58:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',534,'AAAAA3///PQ='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:58:51','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks, this is definitely a move in correct direction.',534,'AAAAA3///PU='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:58:14','Uploaded patch set 4.',534,'AAAAA3///PY='),(2,'2010-04-26 22:42:29','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\nCan you fix the merge conflicts and rebase?\n\nI\'d love to get this in soon.',534,'AAAAA3///Q0='),(46,'2010-04-27 06:08:09','Uploaded patch set 3.',534,'AAAAA3///Qw='),(4,'2010-04-25 22:32:25','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nPlease rebase this change to current master and resolve conflicts.\n\nI think it\'s time to add some swtbot tests for the repository view soon.',534,'AAAAA3///X0='),(46,'2010-04-26 07:28:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',534,'AAAAA3///Xg='),(5,'2010-04-09 13:49:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',535,'AAAAA3///zk='),(5,'2010-04-09 13:49:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nagain, an obvious bug beeing fixed.',535,'AAAAA3///zo='),(46,'2010-04-09 13:44:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',535,'AAAAA3///zs='),(5,'2010-04-09 13:16:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nthat was an obvious bug. Strange that it was not detected\non the previous review.',535,'AAAAA3///zw='),(8,'2010-04-10 18:03:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',536,'AAAAA3///yg='),(8,'2010-04-10 18:03:26','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',536,'AAAAA3///yk='),(8,'2010-04-10 18:03:06','Uploaded patch set 2.',536,'AAAAA3///yo='),(8,'2010-04-10 18:02:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',536,'AAAAA3///yw='),(8,'2010-04-10 17:58:29','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',537,'AAAAA3///y0='),(8,'2010-04-10 17:58:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',537,'AAAAA3///y4='),(8,'2010-04-10 18:03:55','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',537,'AAAAA3///yc='),(8,'2010-04-10 18:03:05','Uploaded patch set 3.',537,'AAAAA3///ys='),(8,'2010-04-10 18:03:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',537,'AAAAA3///yY='),(1,'2010-04-11 02:41:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',538,'AAAAA3///w0='),(1,'2010-04-11 02:41:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',538,'AAAAA3///w4='),(8,'2010-04-10 17:35:25','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',538,'AAAAA3///zE='),(8,'2010-04-10 15:27:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\nAccording to strace this change halves the number of syscalls\nneeded for checking status on an unchanged file on Linux. The\nperformance benefit on my laptop is consistently about 15-20% with hot cache for a repo with 19 projects and 800 files.\n\nThis is not the final say on this topic,',538,'AAAAA3///zM='),(8,'2010-04-10 17:44:43','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAlready implemented in I839931ad3d1ffa4e34e87e3816b21934e15a98b4',539,'AAAAA3///zA='),(8,'2010-04-10 17:20:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nFor a twenty-project commit this is twenty times faster :)',539,'AAAAA3///zI='),(8,'2010-04-10 17:57:27','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\ndup',540,'AAAAA3///y8='),(1,'2010-04-11 02:24:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',541,'AAAAA3///xg='),(1,'2010-04-11 02:25:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',541,'AAAAA3///xU='),(4,'2010-04-10 23:40:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',541,'AAAAA3///yE='),(1,'2010-04-11 02:29:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',542,'AAAAA3///xM='),(1,'2010-04-11 02:29:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',542,'AAAAA3///xQ='),(4,'2010-04-10 23:40:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',542,'AAAAA3///yA='),(1,'2010-04-11 02:25:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',543,'AAAAA3///xc='),(1,'2010-04-11 02:25:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',543,'AAAAA3///xY='),(49,'2010-04-20 18:43:26','Patch Set 3:\n\n@Matthias\n\nI can\'t reproduce this issue with NumberFormatException. Here is a list of steps that I\'ve made (everything was done from EGti):\n* create a new project\n* initialized git repository\n* add a file and commit it\n* create a tag\n* select that file and choose Team -> Show in Resource History\nThere was no exceptions, everything went well. I\'ve even added two more tag\'s, and same as before there was no exceptions.\n\nThen using git cat-file I\'ve compare tag object created from eclipse with one created with CGit and there was no difference in semantics of that objects.\n\nI\'ve tested it on JGit v0.7.1-34-gf36df5d and EGit v0.7.1-67-gebbaf06 (in case of EGit this is version of master branch that was merged with my changes).\n\nMaybe this issue exists only on specific system/configuration ?',544,'AAAAA3///hY='),(4,'2010-04-20 11:44:23','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nThis implements tag -a, right ? Lightweight and signed tags are not yet supported.\nI think you should mention that in the commit message.\n\nThe layout of the BranchSelectionDialog sucks, buttons have random size\nand are distributed randomly on the dialog. Your new button \"New tag\" follows \nthis bad tradition ...See http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,578\nwhich intends to improve that. \n\nWhat about deleting a tag ?\n\nTagging of non-HEAD commits isn\'t yet possible, right ?\n\nWouldn\'t it be a good idea to also allow editing the tag message when renaming a tag ?\nThis would be something like tag -f from command line git.\n\nShow Resource history is broken by your change :\n- create a tag\n- in package explorer select some file and Team > Show in Resource History\nthis throws :\njava.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: \"1761820 +0200\"\nat java.lang.NumberFormatException.forInputString(NumberFormatException.java:48)\nat java.lang.Integer.parseInt(Integer.java:458)\nat java.lang.Integer.parseInt(Integer.java:499)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.lib.PersonIdent.<init>(PersonIdent.java:220)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.lib.Tag.decode(Tag.java:161)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.lib.Tag.getTagger(Tag.java:242)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.revplot.PlotWalk$PlotRefComparator.timeof(PlotWalk.java:135)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.revplot.PlotWalk$PlotRefComparator.compare(PlotWalk.java:120)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.revplot.PlotWalk$PlotRefComparator.compare(PlotWalk.java:1)\nat java.util.Arrays.mergeSort(Arrays.java:1270)\nat java.util.Arrays.sort(Arrays.java:1210)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.revplot.PlotWalk.getTags(PlotWalk.java:109)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.SWTWalk.createCommit(SWTWalk.java:23)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.revwalk.RevWalk.parseAny(RevWalk.java:736)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.revwalk.RevWalk.parseCommit(RevWalk.java:660)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage.inputSet(GitHistoryPage.java:908)\nat org.eclipse.team.ui.history.HistoryPage.setInput(HistoryPage.java:59)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.history.GitHistoryPage.setInput(GitHistoryPage.java:831)\nat org.eclipse.team.internal.ui.history.GenericHistoryView.showHistoryPageFor(GenericHistoryView.java:738)\nat org.eclipse.team.internal.ui.history.GenericHistoryView.showHistory(GenericHistoryView.java:969)\nat org.eclipse.team.internal.ui.history.GenericHistoryView.access$3(GenericHistoryView.java:965)\nat org.eclipse.team.internal.ui.history.GenericHistoryView$3.selectionChanged(GenericHistoryView.java:433)\nat org.eclipse.ui.internal.AbstractSelectionService.firePostSelection(AbstractSelectionService.java:179)\nat org.eclipse.ui.internal.AbstractSelectionService.setActivePart(AbstractSelectionService.java:289)\nat org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchPagePartList.fireActivePartChanged(WorkbenchPagePartList.java:60)\nat org.eclipse.ui.internal.PartList.setActivePart(PartList.java:136)\nat org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchPage.setActivePart(WorkbenchPage.java:3537)\nat org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchPage.requestActivation(WorkbenchPage.java:3077)\nat org.eclipse.ui.internal.PartPane.requestActivation(PartPane.java:279)\nat org.eclipse.ui.internal.PartPane.handleEvent(PartPane.java:237)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.EventTable.sendEvent(EventTable.java:84)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1050)',544,'AAAAA3///i8='),(49,'2010-04-20 13:31:09','Patch Set 3:\n\n@Remy Suen\n\nInput validator was taken from BranchSelectionDialog.getRefNameInputDialog(), that is directly described in TagInputDialog source code.\n\nI\'ve also was wondering would it be better to have tag\'s and branches in one dialog or maybe split it into two separate dialog\'s/action\'s. As you see I\'ve finally decided to keep it in one place, generally because branches and tag\'s ware already meshed up in one place. But maybe that is a good idea to separate it right now.\n\n@Matthias Sohn\n\nYes, this is only implementation for annotated, unsigned tags. Good point I\'ll add this information to commit message on next push.\n\n> What about deleting a tag ?\nIt is unsupported, same as branch deleting. In case of adding this feature I\'ll suggest to separate support for branch and tag\'s into two different action, as already Remy Suen suggested. What do you think?\n\n> Tagging of non-HEAD commits isn\'t yet possible, right ?\nI don\'t understood what you mean by \"non-HEAD commits\", could you explain that ?\n\n> Wouldn\'t it be a good idea to also allow editing the tag message when renaming a tag ? This would be something like tag -f from command line git.\nYes, this also a good idea same as tag deleting. But in my humble opinion it would be better if that two new features would be added to separate dialog. Implementing it in BranchSelectionDialog class will increase it complexity.\n\n> Show Resource history is broken by your change\n\nI\'ve didn\'t check \"Resource history\", my fault. I\'ll fix it.\n\nI\'ll work on that patch this evening!',544,'AAAAA3///iw='),(63,'2010-04-20 11:43:53','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nIt seems to me that TagInputDialog, which has code copy/pasted from BranchSelectionDialog, suffers from the same problem that\'s described change 580.\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/580\n\nAlso, I think it would make more sense if there were two separate actions for tagging and branching instead of stuffing them both in the same dialog. If they both need to go in the same dialog, then I think we need to put the branch/tag/rename buttons off to the right of the table instead of having all of them at the bottom. Five buttons is a lot for the bottom of a dialog and I don\'t think I\'ve seen that anywhere in the Eclipse SDK.',544,'AAAAA3///jA='),(49,'2010-04-20 05:48:21','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nPatch set rebased.',544,'AAAAA3///jM='),(49,'2010-04-20 05:46:45','Uploaded patch set 3.',544,'AAAAA3///jQ='),(4,'2010-04-19 23:30:12','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\ncould you rebase your change onto current master it conflicts with Remy\'s recently accepted change http://egit.eclipse.org/w/?p=egit.git;a=commitdiff;h=12ac70d514fa3282b73a51c31c63e079b0d59edf',544,'AAAAA3///ko='),(49,'2010-04-27 18:02:26','Patch Set 3:\n\nI\'ve plan to push my changes before Saturday.\n\nAs far as I know there is no corresponding bug for this feature. I\'ll create one and add it co commit message as it should be ;).',544,'AAAAA3///M8='),(4,'2010-04-27 22:32:38','Patch Set 3:\n\nI created https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=310735 to track the problems caused by incorrect user.email configuration.',544,'AAAAA3///MM='),(2,'2010-04-27 17:52:58','Patch Set 3:\n\nOk, I look forward to your next patch :)\n\nIs there a bug # associated with this feature?\n\nIf so, make sure to include it in the commit message.',544,'AAAAA3///NA='),(2,'2010-04-26 21:22:28','Patch Set 3:\n\nMatthias, we should probably open a bug to make sure EGit does some sanity checks about user.email',544,'AAAAA3///R4='),(2,'2010-04-26 21:22:01','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nSomeone will need to rebase the changes also.',544,'AAAAA3///R8='),(2,'2010-04-26 21:44:22','Patch Set 3:\n\nThanks, we should also have an explicit \"Tag...\" option in the menu :)',544,'AAAAA3///Ro='),(49,'2010-04-26 21:42:38','Patch Set 3:\n\nI\'ll rebase it when I finish working on new patch set.\n\nNow it\'ll be more like CVS tagging dialog. IMHO it would be more useful.',544,'AAAAA3///Rs='),(49,'2010-04-26 21:53:49','Patch Set 3:\n\nYes, this will also be included in next patch set.',544,'AAAAA3///RU='),(4,'2010-04-26 21:20:23','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nI had a wrongly configured user.email setting having extra < > brackets around my email address which lead to parsing errors in the jgit code reading tags which is called when displaying resource history containing tags. I believe this caused the mentioned NumberFormatException. I will retry with correct configuration.',544,'AAAAA3///SA='),(49,'2010-04-11 20:43:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',544,'AAAAA3///wA='),(15,'2010-04-26 09:49:18','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nDariusz, can you try changing your computer\'s time zone ? This is one possible cause of differences in formatting dates.',544,'AAAAA3///XM='),(4,'2010-04-25 22:47:27','Patch Set 3:\n\nI started another try from a new fresh workspace:\n\n- start test IDE containing your change\n- clone egit from git://egit.eclipse.org/egit.git\n- create a tag test-1 on egit\n- select project org.eclipse.egit in package explorer\n- Team > Show in Resource History\n\n-> NumberFormatException in error log, this time the input string is  \"2235249 +0200\"',544,'AAAAA3///Xw='),(63,'2010-05-05 11:45:12','Patch Set 4:\n\nIt is possible to get the proposals to appear even when typing but it doesn\'t really matter to me one way or another at the end of the day.',544,'AAALun////U='),(4,'2010-05-05 12:27:57','Patch Set 4:\n\nof course you may move stuff you want to postpone to another change to bugzilla',544,'AAALun///+c='),(8,'2010-05-08 20:34:30','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',544,'AAALun///0A='),(8,'2010-05-08 20:33:48','Patch Set 6: No score; No score\n\nQuite close now.\n\nStart considering automatic unit tests. We are short of them. Separating the operation and UI tests is /probably/ a good idea, but this varies from case to case.',544,'AAALun///0E='),(49,'2010-05-08 20:15:40','Patch Set 6: No score\n\n',544,'AAALun///0Q='),(63,'2010-05-08 16:48:26','Patch Set 6: No score\n\nThere are some issues with the dialog\'s margins. I\'ve attached a screenshot to bug 311262.',544,'AAALun///1w='),(4,'2010-05-07 20:23:58','Patch Set 5:\n\nplease add the footer\nCQ: 4073\nto the commit message of your next patchset in order to point out the link to the IP review we\'ll send to Eclipse IP team as soon as code review is accepted.\n\nFor an example see http://egit.eclipse.org/w/?p=egit.git;a=commit;h=4f6371397f0880f6ce4c011eb1c8461fe44f9c53',544,'AAALun///2c='),(49,'2010-05-08 09:33:38','Uploaded patch set 6.',544,'AAALun///2U='),(49,'2010-05-07 11:54:52','Patch Set 5:\n\nI\'ve answered for some of comments, rest of them I\'ll handle on the evening.',544,'AAALun///3w='),(49,'2010-05-07 07:48:46','Patch Set 5:\n\n> - I feel the feature that editing the tag name edit field\n> filters the list of existing tags is not obvious.\n> I first had the impression that something is weird here,\n> after playing around I discovered that this is filtering\n> and not a bug. IMHO it\'s a good idea but somehow this\n> needs to be made more obvious.\n\nMaybe we should change filter here (now it checks that existing tag name starts with value in \'tag name\' input) and maybe add light bulb same as to commit combo to indicate that this field has realtime influence on dialog\'s content.\n\n> - I think the dialog title should be just\n> Create tag on branch \"xyz\"\n\nDONE.\n\n> - when trying to replace an existing tag I would expect that\n> the fields switch to read-only automatically when the tag\n> name field is equal to an existing tag name, having to\n> select the existing tag for that requires too many clicks\n> and doesn\'t feel intuitive\n\nLets consider situation when this feature is implemented and user want to create tag \'v1.0.1\' when he had already existing tag \'v1.0\'.\nIn this case he will type \'v1.0\' in tag name field, then all fields goes read-only and he must check \'Force replace existing tag\' to be able to continue typing. This behavior would be very confusing and counterproductive.\nI have negative filings about this feature.\n\n> - I was not able to actually replace an existing tag since\n> there seems to be no way to enable the OK button when the\n> force checkbox is checked\n\nI\'ll check that.',544,'AAALun///4c='),(8,'2010-05-07 11:36:09','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',544,'AAALun///4U='),(2,'2010-05-07 01:56:22','Patch Set 5: No score; No score\n\nI created a CQ once we are ready to attach the patch.\n\nhttps://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4073',544,'AAALun///50='),(49,'2010-05-07 06:06:24','Patch Set 5: No score\n\nThis StackOverflowError is unclear for me. It apperar when I\'ve added enabling/disabling CommitCombo. To achieve that I\'ve I overwrite methods isEnabled(), getEnabled() and setEnabled() i CommitCombo class. Maybe I\'m doing something not exactly in SWT way ... I don\'t have any idea why we had here StacOcerflowError :|',544,'AAALun///5U='),(4,'2010-05-06 23:45:26','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n- we need a CQ for this change\n\nwe are getting closer :-) \n\nbut there are still some issues to sort out:\n- I feel the feature that editing the tag name edit field\n  filters the list of existing tags is not obvious. \n  I first had the impression that something is weird here, \n  after playing around I discovered that this is filtering \n  and not a bug. IMHO it\'s a good idea but somehow this \n  needs to be made more obvious.\n- I think the dialog title should be just \n      Create tag on branch \"xyz\"\n- when trying to replace an existing tag I would expect that\n  the fields switch to read-only automatically when the tag\n  name field is equal to an existing tag name, having to\n  select the existing tag for that requires too many clicks\n  and doesn\'t feel intuitive\n- I was not able to actually replace an existing tag since\n  there seems to be no way to enable the OK button when the\n  force checkbox is checked\n- the following sequence leads to a stack overflow :\n  - Team > Create Tag ...\n  - enter a tag name\n  - press tab to jump to the next input field\n  -> this throws\njava.lang.StackOverflowError\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Control.isEnabled(Control.java:1660)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.dialogs.CommitCombo.isEnabled(CommitCombo.java:207)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Control.isEnabled(Control.java:1661)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.dialogs.CommitCombo.isEnabled(CommitCombo.java:207)\n...',544,'AAALun///6E='),(49,'2010-05-06 21:09:30','Uploaded patch set 5.',544,'AAALun///6Y='),(4,'2010-05-12 22:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',544,'AAALun///k4='),(4,'2010-05-12 22:26:01','Patch Set 11: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nverified after rebase and conflict resolution',544,'AAALun///k8='),(49,'2010-05-12 23:14:31','Patch Set 11:\n\nNice!\n\nGreeatings for all of you from GeeCON!',544,'AAALun///kg='),(4,'2010-05-12 22:25:10','Uploaded patch set 11.',544,'AAALun///lA='),(NULL,'2010-05-12 22:06:46','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.',544,'AAALun///lE='),(4,'2010-05-12 22:06:38','Patch Set 10: IP review completed\n\nCQ 4073 was fully approved \n\nThanks Dariusz for this nice piece of work :)',544,'AAALun///lI='),(8,'2010-05-11 20:20:56','Patch Set 10: No score; No score\n\nGood work Dariusz!',544,'AAALun///qs='),(49,'2010-05-11 14:43:06','Patch Set 10: No score\n\nThanks Matthias for fixing my typos ;)\n\nRight now I\'ll work on test coverage for this feature.',544,'AAALun///r0='),(44,'2010-05-11 11:14:44','Patch Set 9: No score\n\n',544,'AAALun///s0='),(4,'2010-05-11 14:35:44','Patch Set 10:\n\nattached patchset 10 to CQ to start IP review',544,'AAALun///sA='),(4,'2010-05-11 14:20:35','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n- fixed some typos in the commit message and in some copyright statements (was \"Darusz\" instead of \"Dariusz\").\n\nI think this is good enough to get the CQ started. \nSubsequent improvements should go in new changes/bugs.',544,'AAALun///sM='),(4,'2010-05-11 14:16:10','Uploaded patch set 10.',544,'AAALun///sQ='),(8,'2010-05-10 20:26:52','Patch Set 8: No score; No score\n\nChris: In a hurry? Don\'t panic! A problem with problems in UIs is that a small one can take a lot of code to fix and if we push it through a CQ, we\'ll need another CQ to fix it, and a dozen bug reports to tend to. It needs to be good enough for anyone to fix without resorting to duct tape.\n\nIt\'s better with a nice working one commit Dariusz can be pround of and at least doesn\'t *have to* be fixed. \n\nWe might think of better UI\'s later on but that\'s another story.',544,'AAALun///tc='),(49,'2010-05-10 23:47:59','Patch Set 9: No score\n\n',544,'AAALun///tQ='),(49,'2010-05-10 23:45:19','Uploaded patch set 9.',544,'AAALun///tY='),(63,'2010-05-09 23:28:37','Patch Set 8: No score\n\nThere are (at least?) two messages missing.\n\n!ENTRY org.eclipse.osgi 2 1 2010-05-09 19:25:02.865\n!MESSAGE NLS missing message: CreateTagDialog_clearButton in: org.eclipse.egit.ui.uitext\n\n!ENTRY org.eclipse.osgi 2 1 2010-05-09 19:25:02.901\n!MESSAGE NLS missing message: CreateTagDialog_clearButtonTooltip in: org.eclipse.egit.ui.uitext',544,'AAALun///u0='),(49,'2010-05-09 23:00:48','Patch Set 8: No score\n\nI couldn\'t resist and implemented clearing right now ;)\n\nEnjoy it ! ;)',544,'AAALun///u4='),(49,'2010-05-09 22:59:01','Uploaded patch set 8.',544,'AAALun///u8='),(4,'2010-05-10 00:05:02','Patch Set 8: No score; No score\n\ngreat we are getting close\n\ntried on Windows XP:\n- now I am able to replace existing tags and OK button behaves properly\n- clicking \"Advanced\" only shows up the label \"Choose commit that should be associated ...\" \nbut no combo, resizing the dialog reveals that this is a layouting problem. \nLooks like the control on which the advanced section is expanded doesn\'t resize sufficiently \nto show the combo for selection of commit to be tagged.\n- clear button got no text for its label in the resource bundle\n- the initial dialog width looked a bit broad but that could be caused by a long error message being displayed instead of the missing clear button label',544,'AAALun///us='),(63,'2010-05-09 23:40:21','Patch Set 8:\n\nClicking on the \'Advanced\' link does nothing for me on Windows 7. Anyone else getting the same thing?',544,'AAALun///uw='),(49,'2010-05-09 19:22:44','Uploaded patch set 7.',544,'AAALun///v0='),(49,'2010-05-09 18:45:39','Patch Set 6:\n\n@Robin:\nIssue#1: Very strange. I never had such situation and I doubt that I could reproduce that. Could you be more specific how it can be reproduce ?\n\nIssue#2: I never consider editing or reviewing un-annotated tags, so this is main cause why it does not working. Fixing this will be very easy ;)',544,'AAALun///v4='),(2,'2010-05-09 22:23:04','Patch Set 7: No score; No score\n\nGood news. Let\'s shoot to get a patch ready for the CQ on Monday.',544,'AAALun///vA='),(8,'2010-05-09 19:53:21','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nIn a new repo you get this in the error log and no dialog.\n\njava.lang.NullPointerException\nat org.eclipse.jgit.lib.ObjectIdSubclassMap.index(ObjectIdSubclassMap.java:172)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.lib.ObjectIdSubclassMap.get(ObjectIdSubclassMap.java:89)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.revwalk.RevWalk.parseAny(RevWalk.java:727)\nat org.eclipse.jgit.revwalk.RevWalk.parseCommit(RevWalk.java:660)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.actions.TagAction.getRevCommits(TagAction.java:155)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.actions.TagAction.execute(TagAction.java:86)',544,'AAALun///vc='),(49,'2010-05-09 22:21:37','Patch Set 7:\n\nOK, I\'ve implemented resizing dialog and proper widget layout after changing of dialog size. Also I\'ve fixed NullPointerException when dialog is called on new repo. Now this dialog should look good when there is lots of tag in repository.\n\nRight now only one thing left, that is adding possibility of creating new tag after one from existing was selected. I think that I\'ll add an extra button \'clear\' or \'new tag\' in left hand corner of dialog. That will setup initial state of dialog.\n\nAll that changes will be included in patch set 8 which, I think, I\'ll send on Monday evening.',544,'AAALun///vE='),(8,'2010-05-09 19:58:15','Patch Set 7:\n\nIf you select a tag to see its message the I cannot create a new tag anymore. I can select \"advanced\" and \"force replace existing tag\", and do it that what, but that is somewhat strange. \n(this is not a showstopper, but we will get bug reports, I\'m pretty sure)',544,'AAALun///vU='),(8,'2010-05-09 19:32:50','Patch Set 7: No score; No score\n\nRegarding Issue#1. Just create a lot of tags. It seems the input fields align with the bottom of the internal pane in the dialog which grows when the existing tags needs more space than has been initially acticated. 15 or so tags will show where things are going.',544,'AAALun///vw='),(49,'2010-05-09 19:54:27','Patch Set 7: No score\n\n@Robin: now I see, I\'ll work on that.',544,'AAALun///vY='),(8,'2010-05-09 08:41:29','Patch Set 6:\n\nI didn\'t resize the the dialog, I just assumed I did. Most dialogs in Eclipse are resizable. Why not this one?\n\nThe only thing I see in the dialog is some internal borders and a long list of tags (to the right).',544,'AAALun///w0='),(8,'2010-05-09 08:35:43','Patch Set 6:\n\nIssue#1: I see no buttons in the dialog. Could it bee that it starts out taller than my screen (lots of build tags). When I resize the window there are still no buttons.\n\nIssue#2: Clicking on an un-annotated tag gives an error\njava.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Argument cannot be null\nat org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:3761)\nat org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:3695)\nat org.eclipse.swt.SWT.error(SWT.java:3666)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.error(Widget.java:446)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Text.setText(Text.java:1894)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.dialogs.CreateTagDialog.setTagImpl(CreateTagDialog.java:422)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.dialogs.CreateTagDialog.fillTagDialog(CreateTagDialog.java:416)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.dialogs.CreateTagDialog.access$7(CreateTagDialog.java:402)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.dialogs.CreateTagDialog$5.selectionChanged(CreateTagDialog.java:375)',544,'AAALun///w4='),(4,'2010-05-09 00:01:39','Patch Set 6:\n\nsome more language nits',544,'AAALun///xc='),(8,'2010-05-09 07:46:27','Patch Set 6:\n\nDariusz wrote: In my humble opinion writing UI unit tests before we establish how UI should look like, behavior and what features should be implemented is worthless. Because that I haven\'t implement them as well as documentation for this dialog but I have both of them in my mind. I\'ll move on with documentation and junits when this dialog will be concrete.\n\nThat\'s why I used the term \"consider\" :)',544,'AAALun///xU='),(63,'2010-05-09 00:13:11','Patch Set 6:\n\nThose classes should\'ve been around since 3.0. I certainly see them in 3.4\'s javadocs anyway.\nhttp://help.eclipse.org/ganymede/nftopic/org.eclipse.platform.doc.isv/reference/api/index.html',544,'AAALun///xY='),(49,'2010-05-08 23:17:25','Patch Set 6:\n\nI\'m almost done with \"OK\" button. Issue mentioned by Remy is now fixed, but one that Matthias picked up is still existing. I\'ll work on it tomorrow and I think that until tomorrow evening I\'ll send new patch set.\n\nRight now I\'m not quite sure what done with ExpandableComposite and Expansion(Event/Adapter), I don\'t want to implement on my own, and copying them inside EGit is also not an option. Maybe someone has some ideas or suggestions in this case ?',544,'AAALun///yA='),(4,'2010-05-08 22:59:34','Patch Set 6: No score; No score\n\n- if trying to replace an existing tag the OK button is only enabled if the tag name is changed, but if I just want to amend the tag message or move the tag to another commit the button should be also enabled, right ?\n\nI would say: fix the remaining issues which have been raised and we are ready to go for the CQ. The remaining stuff, especially tests (not only UI but also EGit core tests are maybe an option here) can be taken up in the next step.',544,'AAALun///yM='),(49,'2010-05-08 21:00:53','Patch Set 6:\n\nIn my humble opinion writing UI unit tests before we establish how UI should look like, behavior and what features should be implemented is worthless. Because that I haven\'t implement them as well as documentation for this dialog but I have both of them in my mind. I\'ll move on with documentation and junits when this dialog will be concrete.',544,'AAALun///z0='),(8,'2010-05-08 20:48:52','Patch Set 6:\n\nChris: I think we can merge it without unit tests, if that is what you are thinking about.',544,'AAALun///z4='),(2,'2010-05-08 20:47:11','Patch Set 6: No score; No score\n\nHey guys, not to be the evil pragmatic guy here, but can we get a minimum level of functionality that\'s acceptable and then get the CQ moving on this feature? Ideally I\'d like to get this in for 0.8.0 and would prefer the CQ started soon. We can always polish this feature in the future without the need of a CQ :)',544,'AAALun///z8='),(63,'2010-05-08 21:07:45','Patch Set 6:\n\nEGit team, merge it whenever you all feel like it\'s good to go.\n\nAs an outsider, I will always, and continue to, comment with \'0 no score\' so it doesn\'t \"skew\" the system and make it seem like something was delivered with a -1 vote.',544,'AAALun///zw='),(2,'2010-05-03 08:43:02','Patch Set 4:\n\nThanks Dariusz!\n\nWe have a couple weeks until we start freezing EGit for 0.8.0 so the rush isn\'t that bad, just wanted to make you aware. We are really looking forward to have this support in EGit.',544,'AAALuX///08='),(49,'2010-05-03 08:29:09','Patch Set 4: No score\n\nI\'m currently away form my computer so I cannot work on this patch set. I\'ll back on it Tuesday (04.05.2001) evening and and then I\'ll answer yours comments. I thing that til Thursday there should be here a new patch set with suggested improvements.',544,'AAALuX///1E='),(2,'2010-05-03 08:05:06','Patch Set 4: No score; No score\n\nDariusz, we would like to get this in 0.8.0 if possible.\n\nCan you have an updated patch soon?',544,'AAALuX///1M='),(4,'2010-05-01 20:55:08','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nWe\'ll need a CQ for IP review since this change is way larger than 250 lines hence marking this as unclean IP. I\'ll create the CQ as soon as this change has settled and review is fine.\n\nI played around with the UI, in general you are moving in the right direction :)\n\nI think from usability perspective we need some polishing:\n- the label for the tag name should be just \"Tag name*:\"\n  more detailed descriptions should IMO go into the online help or a tooltip (don\'t know what the Eclipse UI guidelines recommend here)\n- it would be useful to see the branch name the tag will be created on\n- IMO the list of existing tags for the given branch should be always shown as another list on the left side of the dialog (probably this should be sorted in reverse chronological order, means latest on top). I didn\'t expect to find this list behind the \"Details >>\" button.\n- when entering a tag name which already exists the tag list should scroll to this already existing tag and the tag name edit field background should turn red to make the user aware of the fact that this tag already exists. Maybe then a help text should appear \"Tag xyz already exists, if you want to replace it check the force option\".\n- if an existing branch has been selected from the list there is no way to create a new tag anymore except closing and re-opening the dialog. This could be solved by adding a pseudo entry in the list which is named e.g. <create new tag>. Selecting this entry should then clear all the edit fields so that a new tag can be defined.\n- I think the label \"Overwrite existing tag\" should be changed to \"Force: replace existing tag\" (see description of -f in [1], as long as this checkbox is not checked the data for an existing tag should be read-only. Then users will rather think twice before they change an existing tag.\n- the advanced mode is cool :) I think the label should be a bit more to the point, e.g. \"Select commit to tag\". To notify the user that he can start typing display the little bulb icon in front of the edit field (used e.g. for the URI field of clone wizard you open via \"Import > Git Repository\") and display the explanation as a tooltip on this icon.\n\n[1] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-tag.html',544,'AAALuX///3w='),(63,'2010-05-01 01:08:33','Patch Set 4: No score\n\nI\'ve inlined a bunch of comments. I didn\'t really play with it much to be honest. Mostly just trying out the user interface and going over the diffs.\n\nAs an aside, I think the strings/messages may need some rewording but that can be addressed later.\n\nOh, there were also some unused NLS message warnings in my console. Please either a) use them or b) delete them. ;)\n\n!ENTRY org.eclipse.osgi 2 1 2010-04-30 20:29:05.189\n!MESSAGE NLS unused message: BranchSelectionDialog_NewTag in: org.eclipse.egit.ui.uitext\n\n!ENTRY org.eclipse.osgi 2 1 2010-04-30 20:29:05.190\n!MESSAGE NLS unused message: BranchSelectionDialog_NoBranchSeletectMessage in: org.eclipse.egit.ui.uitext\n\n!ENTRY org.eclipse.osgi 2 1 2010-04-30 20:29:05.190\n!MESSAGE NLS unused message: BranchSelectionDialog_NoBranchSeletectTitle in: org.eclipse.egit.ui.uitext',544,'AAALuX///4U='),(49,'2010-04-30 23:49:32','Uploaded patch set 4.',544,'AAALuX///5U='),(49,'2010-05-04 22:22:44','Patch Set 4:\n\n@Remy:\nI\'ve answered yours comments. Some of them I\'ve already implement but I\'ll publish them after I handle all requests.\n\n@Matthias:\nIf you don\'t mind I\'ll move your last comment to bugzilla and add my comments for things that you were pointing out.',544,'AAALuX///xc='),(1,'2010-04-16 22:20:04','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAlready merged as Ifa399997ef16bd27e616400af88c619e34b674ad',545,'AAAAA3///n8='),(2,'2010-04-16 20:16:27','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nCan you abandon this change then?',545,'AAAAA3///oU='),(6,'2010-04-15 09:18:10','Patch Set 1: Do not submit; No score\n\nThis has the same content as the already merged Ifa399997ef16bd27e616400af88c619e34b674ad',545,'AAAAA3///ro='),(61,'2010-04-14 08:11:39','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nSee http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,531',546,'AAAAA3///uk='),(1,'2010-04-12 16:16:07','Patch Set 1: Do not submit; No score\n\nPlease don\'t upload unnecessary merge commits.  It pollutes the history and makes things harder to follow.  We prefer to rebase changes onto the current branch, rather than merge with master, when updating our local working repositories.\n\nIn general I only like merges when moving from say the stable branch to master, where we can\'t rebase because the history is part of a released service revision.',546,'AAAAA3///vk='),(61,'2010-04-14 08:11:43','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nSee http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,531',547,'AAAAA3///ug='),(61,'2010-04-14 08:11:27','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nSee http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,531',548,'AAAAA3///uo='),(8,'2010-04-11 22:39:07','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nPlease amend the original patch instead of adding another.',548,'AAAAA3///v4='),(8,'2010-04-13 19:28:05','Patch Set 1:\n\nThe easiest way is to create a new branch on top of egit\'s master branch. Then cherry-pick your changes into\nit and finally use rebase -i to squash them together and update the comment so it looks like there ever was one patch. I suggest you re-use the change-id of the first\npatch and abandon this one. Something like',548,'AAAAA3///vM='),(61,'2010-04-12 17:41:04','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nI tried to just follow the instructions on the Wiki for pushing amended commits but evidently I blew it somehow. Is there any way to salvage this?',548,'AAAAA3///vY='),(8,'2010-04-18 18:37:43','Patch Set 2:\n\nCreate https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=309588 as a followup to this feature.',549,'AAAAA3///l0='),(NULL,'2010-04-16 12:08:00','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.',549,'AAAAA3///p0='),(6,'2010-04-16 12:07:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',549,'AAAAA3///p4='),(6,'2010-04-16 12:14:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',549,'AAAAA3///po='),(6,'2010-04-16 12:14:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',549,'AAAAA3///ps='),(6,'2010-04-16 12:13:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',549,'AAAAA3///pw='),(44,'2010-04-16 08:45:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',549,'AAAAA3///qo='),(6,'2010-04-15 07:07:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',549,'AAAAA3///sg='),(1,'2010-04-14 00:26:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',550,'AAAAA3///u8='),(1,'2010-04-14 00:26:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',550,'AAAAA3///vA='),(8,'2010-04-13 21:03:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',550,'AAAAA3///vE='),(NULL,'2010-04-20 01:19:07','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',551,'AAAAA3///j4='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:23:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',551,'AAAAA3///jU='),(1,'2010-04-19 15:32:45','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',551,'AAAAA3///lM='),(1,'2010-04-17 00:05:00','Uploaded patch set 4.',551,'AAAAA3///nc='),(31,'2010-04-17 00:16:04','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',551,'AAAAA3///nQ='),(31,'2010-04-15 17:22:40','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',551,'AAAAA3///rU='),(1,'2010-04-14 23:53:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',551,'AAAAA3///t0='),(1,'2010-04-15 00:19:08','Patch Set 3: IP review completed\n\n',551,'AAAAA3///tk='),(1,'2010-04-15 00:19:03','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nI can\'t reproduce the bug anymore using the proper JGit build within Gerrit Code Review.  Also, since the unit test passes, and is nearly full code coverage, I\'d say its pretty likely to be correct at this point.',551,'AAAAA3///to='),(1,'2010-04-14 02:31:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',551,'AAAAA3///u0='),(31,'2010-04-14 00:36:02','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nThis gets us a little closer to working, but there seems to be another case we haven\'t thought about:\n\nDelta compression using up to 16 threads.\nCompressing objects: 100% (71/71), done.\nWriting objects: 100% (152/152), 20.66 KiB, done.\nTotal 152 (delta 71), reused 67 (delta 30)\nerror: unpack failed: error Missing blob b423bcb4ace7f2be1aca49e45c99b32d82333d1a\nTo ssh://localhost:29418/gerrit.git\n ! [remote rejected] HEAD -> refs/for/master (n/a (unpacker error))\nerror: failed to push some refs to \'ssh://localhost:29418/gerrit.git\'',551,'AAAAA3///u4='),(31,'2010-04-14 17:10:17','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nI\'m pretty sure I am using the most recent version of JGit. I merged this change with my debugging code, and ran it, and it works for the previous object where it was failing, and fails a little later, on a different object.\n\nThat other object is not present in the .git/ folder either...\n\nThanks for the unittest. I\'ll see if I can make that one trip.',551,'AAAAA3///uc='),(1,'2010-04-14 02:33:33','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nI haven\'t actually fixed the bug you seem to still see here.  \n\nBut I added a test case, and I _think_ the test case is validating the original bug I reported to you against this code.\n\nAre you sure you were testing with this change in JGit in your Gerrit test instance, and weren\'t using an older copy of JGit?  I\'ll retry the manual test script tomorrow within Gerrit and see if I can better isolate the failure you are still seeing.  But at least this change tests for and fixes the first bug we found today.',551,'AAAAA3///uw='),(8,'2010-04-17 11:26:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',552,'AAAAA3///m0='),(8,'2010-04-17 11:26:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',552,'AAAAA3///m4='),(1,'2010-04-17 00:07:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThis time it comes with a test.  :-)',552,'AAAAA3///nU='),(1,'2010-04-17 00:05:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',552,'AAAAA3///nY='),(1,'2010-04-16 22:19:33','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nYup, OK.  New patch soon.',552,'AAAAA3///oA='),(8,'2010-04-16 21:46:57','Patch Set 1:\n\nCould you add something to IndexTest.java too?',552,'AAAAA3///oI='),(8,'2010-04-16 21:46:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCould you add something to IndexTest.java too?',552,'AAAAA3///oM='),(1,'2010-04-15 00:19:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',552,'AAAAA3///tg='),(6,'2010-04-15 08:31:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThere is the same bug as in the compare editor: If an editor is open for the resource it will get dirty (Bugzilla 302145)\n\nHowever, the Fix to this is known now and will be proposed immediately.',553,'AAAAA3///sc='),(6,'2010-04-15 08:38:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',553,'AAAAA3///sM='),(6,'2010-04-15 08:38:03','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',553,'AAAAA3///sQ='),(6,'2010-04-15 08:37:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',553,'AAAAA3///sU='),(NULL,'2010-04-15 08:31:18','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.',553,'AAAAA3///sY='),(8,'2010-04-14 19:04:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',554,'AAAAA3///uU='),(8,'2010-04-14 19:04:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',554,'AAAAA3///uY='),(NULL,'2010-04-16 13:09:11','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.',555,'AAAAA3///pc='),(6,'2010-04-16 13:09:09','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',555,'AAAAA3///pg='),(9,'2010-04-16 12:35:03','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',555,'AAAAA3///pk='),(6,'2010-04-16 13:12:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',555,'AAAAA3///pQ='),(6,'2010-04-16 13:11:48','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',555,'AAAAA3///pU='),(6,'2010-04-16 13:11:27','Uploaded patch set 3.',555,'AAAAA3///pY='),(6,'2010-04-15 09:10:46','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',555,'AAAAA3///rs='),(6,'2010-04-15 09:06:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',555,'AAAAA3///sI='),(6,'2010-04-16 08:19:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',556,'AAAAA3///q0='),(6,'2010-04-16 08:20:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',556,'AAAAA3///qw='),(6,'2010-04-15 09:10:04','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',556,'AAAAA3///rw='),(6,'2010-04-15 09:06:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',556,'AAAAA3///sA='),(2,'2010-04-16 20:04:49','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, looks good.',557,'AAAAA3///oc='),(2,'2010-04-16 20:04:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',557,'AAAAA3///og='),(NULL,'2010-04-16 20:00:12','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.',557,'AAAAA3///ok='),(2,'2010-04-16 20:00:10','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, looks good',557,'AAAAA3///oo='),(2,'2010-04-16 20:05:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',557,'AAAAA3///oY='),(6,'2010-04-15 09:09:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',557,'AAAAA3///r0='),(6,'2010-04-15 09:06:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',557,'AAAAA3///sE='),(4,'2010-04-20 15:12:59','Patch Set 9: No score\n\nok, I\'ll switch to Linux and try to reproduce your problem',558,'AAAAA3///h4='),(1,'2010-04-21 20:50:41','Patch Set 9:\n\nI ran it in the top-level, assuming that trying to run a single Maven project by itself wouldn\'t work out too good.\n\nIf it works for you and not me, I must just have a cursed workstation.  We can still submit, we\'ll just probably see at least one other user with failing tests, and we can all scratch our heads again about that then.',558,'AAAAA3///hA='),(4,'2010-04-21 20:26:53','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI tried on Ubuntu 9.10 against helios M6 using openjdk 6 and all tests passed successfully.\n\nDid you run maven on egit parent project or just on the ui test project ? The maven build installs egit and jgit features into the eclipse sdk used as test harness from the local update site built by the update site project using the maven property local-egit-site.',558,'AAAAA3///hE='),(4,'2010-04-20 13:05:41','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',558,'AAAAA3///i0='),(4,'2010-04-20 13:04:30','Uploaded patch set 9.',558,'AAAAA3///i4='),(1,'2010-04-20 14:32:56','Patch Set 9: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nI\'m still getting WNFE on my Linux box while running the tests with the Helios platform.  I don\'t think the dialog is opening:\n\ncanCloneARemoteRepo(org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest)  Time elapsed: 5.254 sec  <<< ERROR!\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find widget.\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 5000 ms.: Could not find shell matching: with text \'Import\'\n\nThe workbench seems to startup, just sits there, and then finally exits.  Seems to me that the import dialog doesn\'t start like expected, so all of the tests just time out and fail.',558,'AAAAA3///is='),(4,'2010-04-19 22:54:11','Uploaded patch set 7.',558,'AAAAA3///k4='),(4,'2010-04-19 23:11:27','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nGitCloneWizardTest.canCloneARemoteRepo() checks if the cloned repository exists after running the test. The path to the cloned repository is under the eclipse workspace used in the test run. Since Tycho seems to hardcode the workspace path used for plugin tests this test failed when run from Tycho. As a workaround I changed the workspace path used in the tests to the path eclipse-plugin-test expects. This way now all tests succeed (at least on my box) :-)',558,'AAAAA3///ks='),(4,'2010-04-19 23:03:33','Uploaded patch set 8.',558,'AAAAA3///kw='),(2,'2010-04-27 14:42:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',558,'AAAAA3///N8='),(2,'2010-04-27 14:42:23','Patch Set 11:\n\nWow, it works. Let\'s do it.',558,'AAAAA3///OA='),(8,'2010-04-16 21:51:03','Patch Set 6: No score; No score\n\nI get this:\n[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.sonatype.tycho:maven-osgi-compiler-plugin:0.8.0:compile (default-compile) on project org.eclipse.egit.ui.test: Compilation failure: Compilation failure:\n/home/me/SW/egitcontrib/egit/org.eclipse.egit.ui.test/src/org/eclipse/egit/ui/wizards/clone/GitCloneWizardTest.java (at line 1):[-1,-1]\n        /*******************************************************************************\n        ^\nThe type org.junit.internal.runners.TestClassRunner cannot be resolved. It is indirectly referenced from required .class files\n\n/home/me/SW/egitcontrib/egit/org.eclipse.egit.ui.test/src/org/eclipse/egit/ui/wizards/clone/GitCloneWizardTest.java (at line 34):[-1,-1]\n        @RunWith(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.class)\n                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\nType mismatch: cannot convert from Class<SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner> to Class<? extends Runner>\n-> [Help 1]',558,'AAAAA3///oE='),(4,'2010-04-16 11:19:19','Patch Set 4: Do not submit; No score\n\nThe egit and jgit features are missing in the test harness, hence the tests are failing. I am working on a new patchset.',558,'AAAAA3///p8='),(4,'2010-04-16 19:21:50','Patch Set 6: No score; IP review completed\n\nI missed to add the local p2 repository for the egit version under test. Now the tests run against Ganymede, Galileo and Helios.\n\nI still face test failures (always the same when running tests from maven) :\n\nGanymede and Galileo Results :\n\nFailed tests:\n  canCloneARemoteRepo(org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest)\n\nTests in error:\n  clonedRepositoryShouldExistOnFileSystem(org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest)\n\nTests run: 5, Failures: 1, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0\n\n\nHelios Results :\n\nFailed tests:\n  canCloneARemoteRepo(org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest)\n\nTests in error:\n  updatesParameterFieldsInImportDialogWhenURIIsUpdated(org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest)\n  clonedRepositoryShouldExistOnFileSystem(org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest)\n\nTests run: 5, Failures: 1, Errors: 2, Skipped: 0\n\n\nWhen running test from Helios inside Eclipse IDE in most of the cases I don\'t get any failures. But sometimes I see a popup with the message:\n\n\"Wizard cannot be closed due to an active operation. You must cancel the operation before you can close the wizard.\"\n\nMaybe this rings some bells for somebody ?',558,'AAAAA3///pA='),(4,'2010-04-16 18:50:18','Uploaded patch set 6.',558,'AAAAA3///pE='),(4,'2010-04-16 15:39:27','Patch Set 5: No score; No score\n\nremaining problems:\n- provisioning problem on Ganymede\n- some test failures maybe caused by test breakage',558,'AAAAA3///pI='),(4,'2010-04-16 15:37:32','Uploaded patch set 5.',558,'AAAAA3///pM='),(38,'2010-04-16 01:55:33','Patch Set 4: No score\n\nIf you\'re getting WNFE but actually see the widget on screen, chances are there\'s a padded whitespace on the widget text.',558,'AAAAA3///rA='),(1,'2010-04-16 00:29:00','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\nSWTBot is running with helios, but p2 provisioning fails with ganymede.  Also, some tests fail on my desktop.  I\'m not sure if its an existing test breakage, or something wrong with this build configuration.  Right now I\'m thinking its just existing test breakage...\n\n  invalidHostnameFreezesDialog(org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest)  Time elapsed: 5.121 sec  <<< ERROR!\n  org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find widget.\n  Caused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 5000 ms.: Could not find shell matching: with text \'Import\'',558,'AAAAA3///rE='),(4,'2010-04-15 22:44:55','Uploaded patch set 4.',558,'AAAAA3///rI='),(4,'2010-04-26 21:06:55','Patch Set 11: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nOn my Ubuntu workstation this now works with all supported eclipse platform versions (ganymede, galileo, helios). Hope this is converging now ...',558,'AAAAA3///SI='),(4,'2010-04-26 21:03:58','Uploaded patch set 11.',558,'AAAAA3///SQ='),(4,'2010-04-26 20:59:52','Uploaded patch set 10.',558,'AAAAA3///SU='),(4,'2010-04-14 23:50:06','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nTest runs from Maven hit exception:\n\njava.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index: 0, Size: 0\n        at java.util.ArrayList.RangeCheck(ArrayList.java:547)\n        at java.util.ArrayList.get(ArrayList.java:322)\n        at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.finder.SWTWorkbenchBot.perspective(SWTWorkbenchBot.java:69)\n        at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.finder.SWTWorkbenchBot.perspectiveByLabel(SWTWorkbenchBot.java:81)\n        at org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest.setupViews(GitCloneWizardTest.java:317)\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...\n\nNo idea yet why, running tests from Eclipse works.',558,'AAAAA3///t4='),(4,'2010-04-14 23:47:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',558,'AAAAA3///t8='),(4,'2010-04-15 00:20:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',558,'AAAAA3///tc='),(1,'2010-04-15 01:42:54','Patch Set 3:\n\nIf you are testing against current JGit, you might need my I0b4d9cbd346d5dc225ec12674da905c35457fa7c to get the EGit unit test environment patched up.',558,'AAAAA3///tE='),(4,'2010-04-26 18:21:22','Patch Set 9: No score\n\nThe ganymede p2 repository  doesn\'t provide the org.eclipse.sdk.ide feature used to setup the test harness. Hence the build fails with a provisioning error when running it against ganymed. I\'ll try to find a workaround.',558,'AAAAA3///Tg='),(1,'2010-04-15 01:42:08','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nMinor style nit, otherwise seems OK to me.',558,'AAAAA3///tI='),(4,'2010-04-15 00:15:37','Patch Set 2:\n\nFound https://docs.sonatype.org/display/TYCHO/How+to+run+SWTBot+tests+with+Tycho.\n\nLooks like I missed to run tests on top of Eclipse SDK ;-)\nCurrently testing this, seems to work but it\'s a bit slow since it downloads full SDK. Preparing patch soon.',558,'AAAAA3///ts='),(38,'2010-04-15 00:05:12','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI suspect that the perspective is not available.\n\nYou could try printing out what perspectives are available via bot.perspectives() and get an idea of why that perspective is unavailable.\n\nCould be a language setting or a missing plugin that contributes the perspective.\n\nI\'ll work on improving the error message so it throws a WidgetNotFoundException instead of an Arrayexception.',558,'AAAAA3///tw='),(4,'2010-04-15 00:24:09','Patch Set 3: No score; IP review completed\n\nThis seems to work, I don\'t get these exceptions anymore. \nI need to re-run the tests tomorrow, my DSL link at home is\n too slow so I run into timeout issues.\n\nAs a next step I will work on running the git daemon for the\n repository needed for the tests locally from the test \nenvironment instead of relying on a remote server.',558,'AAAAA3///tY='),(1,'2010-04-26 14:19:36','Patch Set 9:\n\nMaven and Tycho seem to be confused about when to run tests.  I suspect this is a bug/feature in Tycho.  But you are right, when you run `mvn test` Tycho doesn\'t trigger its test suite.  It waits for `mvn install`.  No idea why the tests only execute during the install phase.  Its wrong.  But doesn\'t appear to be anything wrong with Matthias change.',558,'AAAAA3///Wc='),(15,'2010-04-26 14:29:22','Patch Set 9: No score\n\nTycho executes the tests in the integration-test phase by default, and that\'s why they are picked up by mvn install and not by mvn test.',558,'AAAAA3///WM='),(8,'2010-04-26 06:50:34','Patch Set 9: No score; No score\n\nAfter wiping my .m2 directory and rebuilding with \n\ncd jgit\nmvn clean install\nmvn clean install -f org.eclipse.jgit.packaging/pom.xml\ncd ../egit\nmvn clean install\n\nI get this:\n\n[INFO] Test Plug-in (Incubation) ......................... SUCCESS [18.073s]\n[INFO] EGit UI Test Plug-in (Incubation) ................. FAILURE [0.796s]\n\nand it finished with the following message:\n\n[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.sonatype.tycho:maven-osgi-test-plugin:0.8.0:test (default-test) on project org.eclipse.egit.ui.test: Execution default-test of goal org.sonatype.tycho:maven-osgi-test-plugin:0.8.0:test failed: org.eclipse.equinox.internal.provisional.p2.core.ProvisionException: Problems resolving provisioning plan. -> [Help 1]\n\nIf I run with the \"test\" target both test reports succes, but they are lying since they don\'t do anything.',558,'AAAAA3///Xs='),(4,'2010-04-15 21:51:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',559,'AAAAA3///rM='),(4,'2010-04-15 21:51:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',559,'AAAAA3///rQ='),(44,'2010-04-15 13:28:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',559,'AAAAA3///rY='),(1,'2010-04-15 01:41:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',559,'AAAAA3///tM='),(6,'2010-04-16 07:26:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',560,'AAAAA3///q4='),(6,'2010-04-16 07:26:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',560,'AAAAA3///q8='),(6,'2010-04-16 09:50:15','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',561,'AAAAA3///qM='),(6,'2010-04-16 09:50:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',562,'AAAAA3///qE='),(6,'2010-04-16 09:50:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',562,'AAAAA3///qI='),(4,'2010-04-16 19:37:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nverified',563,'AAAAA3///o0='),(2,'2010-04-16 19:57:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',563,'AAAAA3///os='),(2,'2010-04-16 19:57:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',563,'AAAAA3///ow='),(4,'2010-04-16 19:29:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',564,'AAAAA3///o4='),(4,'2010-04-16 19:29:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nverified',564,'AAAAA3///o8='),(8,'2010-04-17 11:26:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',565,'AAAAA3///m8='),(63,'2010-04-16 22:48:09','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nSorry, I forgot that EGit ignores selection (bug 304131). So it looks like this includes a plugin.xml change.',565,'AAAAA3///n4='),(8,'2010-04-17 11:25:58','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',565,'AAAAA3///nA='),(8,'2010-04-16 23:28:58','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nTry to keep the commit message lines around 60-70 characters.',565,'AAAAA3///ng='),(63,'2010-04-16 23:16:33','Uploaded patch set 3.',565,'AAAAA3///nk='),(63,'2010-04-17 00:40:32','Uploaded patch set 4.',565,'AAAAA3///nM='),(63,'2010-04-16 23:10:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',565,'AAAAA3///no='),(1,'2010-04-16 22:59:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',566,'AAAAA3///n0='),(8,'2010-04-16 23:01:09','Patch Set 1:\n\nThat was one quick review :)',566,'AAAAA3///ns='),(1,'2010-04-16 22:59:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',566,'AAAAA3///nw='),(1,'2010-04-17 01:21:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',567,'AAAAA3///nE='),(1,'2010-04-17 01:21:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',567,'AAAAA3///nI='),(4,'2010-04-17 22:28:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',568,'AAAAA3///mc='),(4,'2010-04-17 22:29:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',568,'AAAAA3///mY='),(4,'2010-04-17 22:35:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',569,'AAAAA3///mQ='),(4,'2010-04-17 22:35:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',569,'AAAAA3///mU='),(NULL,'2010-04-20 01:19:07','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',570,'AAAAA3///j8='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:23:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',570,'AAAAA3///jY='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:19:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',570,'AAAAA3///kU='),(31,'2010-04-19 17:52:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',570,'AAAAA3///lE='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:23:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',571,'AAAAA3///jc='),(NULL,'2010-04-20 01:19:07','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',571,'AAAAA3///kA='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:18:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',571,'AAAAA3///kY='),(31,'2010-04-19 17:53:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',571,'AAAAA3///lA='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:23:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',572,'AAAAA3///jg='),(NULL,'2010-04-20 01:18:38','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* I7ee44a314fa19e6a8520472ce05de92c324ad43e\n* I1e8bc87c2e9183733043622237a064e55957891f\n* I5d5fdcf07e25ac9fc360e79a25dff491925e4101\n',572,'AAAAA3///kg='),(NULL,'2010-04-20 01:19:06','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',572,'AAAAA3///kQ='),(8,'2010-04-19 06:17:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',572,'AAAAA3///lc='),(1,'2010-04-19 02:00:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',572,'AAAAA3///lg='),(8,'2010-04-18 18:47:19','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nchanged my mind',572,'AAAAA3///lo='),(8,'2010-04-17 13:03:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\n',572,'AAAAA3///mg='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:23:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',573,'AAAAA3///jk='),(NULL,'2010-04-20 01:18:38','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',573,'AAAAA3///kc='),(NULL,'2010-04-20 01:19:06','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',573,'AAAAA3///kM='),(8,'2010-04-18 18:42:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',573,'AAAAA3///lw='),(NULL,'2010-04-19 06:17:20','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* I7ee44a314fa19e6a8520472ce05de92c324ad43e\n* I1e8bc87c2e9183733043622237a064e55957891f\n* I5d5fdcf07e25ac9fc360e79a25dff491925e4101\n',573,'AAAAA3///lY='),(4,'2010-04-17 23:07:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',573,'AAAAA3///mE='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:23:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',574,'AAAAA3///jo='),(NULL,'2010-04-20 01:19:06','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',574,'AAAAA3///kE='),(1,'2010-04-19 15:32:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',574,'AAAAA3///lU='),(4,'2010-04-17 23:01:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',574,'AAAAA3///mI='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:23:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',575,'AAAAA3///js='),(NULL,'2010-04-20 01:19:06','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',575,'AAAAA3///kI='),(1,'2010-04-19 15:32:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',575,'AAAAA3///lQ='),(4,'2010-04-17 22:52:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',575,'AAAAA3///mM='),(8,'2010-04-17 12:56:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',576,'AAAAA3///mk='),(8,'2010-04-17 11:36:17','Patch Set 2:\n\nPlease make sure the Change-Id is in there in the future. EGit will have a feature for this soon, but for the time being  you should install the hook (see wiki) for C git. Amending an existing commit from C git will add the change-id if the hook is installed. If you already pushed without a change-id, insert the changeid from Gerrit manually and push again.',576,'AAAAA3///mo='),(8,'2010-04-17 11:35:09','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nPlease make sure the Change-Id is in there in the future. EGit will have a feature for this soon, but for the time being  you should install the hook (see wiki) for C git. Amending an existing commit from C git will add the change-id if the hook is installed. If you already pushed without a change-id, insert the changeid from Gerrit manually and push again.',576,'AAAAA3///ms='),(8,'2010-04-17 11:30:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',576,'AAAAA3///mw='),(2,'2010-04-22 01:37:58','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nGood progress, a couple things that help...\n\n1) missing Change-Id: in commit...\n2) missing Bug: in commit...\n\nLet\'s focus on small steps instead of a gigantic patch. We can always iterate.',577,'AAAAA3///gk='),(63,'2010-04-20 21:55:56','Patch Set 1:\n\nDariusz, could you put your comment on the bug directly instead of here on Gerrit? There are parties CC\'d on the bug that I think may have some input into this feature. I\'d prefer keeping the discussions on this particular Gerrit change purely technical.',577,'AAAAA3///hM='),(49,'2010-04-20 21:39:11','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nGood job!\n\nDoing \'Compare With > Git Index\' for each particular file was also for me very annoying. Because that I\'ve proposed this as a part of my GSoC project. Right now the situation is slightly different, thanks to you, there is basic support for \"Synchronization view\", but there are also thing that could be improved! Maybe we can work together on that improvements ?\n\nRight now, from a quick overview, I\'ve noticed that there is no support for actions like:\n* Update\n* Overwrite and Update\n* Mark as merged\n\nin right-click menu of \"Synchronization view\". That actions are very usable in day to day development, specially in Git where you must merge changes locally on your own.\n\nI\'ve noticed that you mentioned in bugzilla bug report that you haven\'t bothered with right-click menu option to call synchronize action. IMHO this is huge disadvantage because it takes me some time to find out how this awesome new feature can used. If I didn\'t have source code (especially plugin.xml file) I\'ll never figure out where it is localizated. So this is quite huge disadvantage right now.\n\nOne more thing, commit dialog. When I choose \"Commit\" in \"Synchronization view\" on a single file, commit action want to commit all changed files. But this rather know bug (304131).\n\nAnyway it is nice to have this feature! Maybe we can slit up some task and work in parallel?',577,'AAAAA3///hQ='),(63,'2010-04-18 03:40:27','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nSorry, couldn\'t get the commit-msg hook working (it didn\'t want to take my password for whatever reason). I\'ll correct the commit message next time.\n\nSee bug 309582 for details about the patch.',577,'AAAAA3///l4='),(63,'2010-04-27 10:11:23','Patch Set 1:\n\nStefan, when I did a two-way compare for HEAD, I couldn\'t get the decorations working as well as I would\'ve liked.\n\nAs to your second comment, you\'re right, that does sound like the right way to do it. I\'m not sure why that didn\'t occur to me but oh well. :o',577,'AAAAA3///Qc='),(6,'2010-04-27 08:18:49','Patch Set 1:\n\nGreat.\n\nTwo observations:\nWouldn\'t we rather use two-way compare for synchronizing with HEAD?\n\nWhen we compare with another branch (or tag, or commit), I would suppose that we use the common ancestor commit as base and do also a comparison of the contents of the blobs.',577,'AAAAA3///Qk='),(63,'2010-04-27 11:23:00','Patch Set 1:\n\nSorry Stefan, I didn\'t realize you had left comments. I\'ve inlined a response to your plugin.xml comment.',577,'AAAAA3///QM='),(2,'2010-04-26 21:48:22','Patch Set 1:\n\nMy concern was to simply have a synchronize view that is as functional as possible for 0.8.0 in June.',577,'AAAAA3///Rc='),(63,'2010-04-26 21:46:44','Patch Set 1:\n\nWell, Dariusz can either a) continue from where I left off, perhaps by fixing/investigating the bug Stefan hit and evaluating the usability issues of the wizard for starters, or b) rewrite it all from scratch, using my code as a reference (or not).\n\nI\'ll let Dariusz and Matthis S decide what to do here.\n\nFrankly, I don\'t really care what happens to this code. My main goal was to quickly hack together something and try to understand what the \'Synchronize\' view means in the context of Git and to get people thinking about this feature. I\'m happy with the resulting discussions we\'ve been having (and hopefully will continue to have) on bug 309582 so far so I\'ve fulfilled my own objectives for submitting this change set as far as I\'m concerned. :)',577,'AAAAA3///Rg='),(49,'2010-04-26 22:02:44','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'m agree with Chris, we should get \'Synchronization View\' support as soon as it is possible. I\'ll prefer move on with Remy\'s changes when I finish working on tagging support. IMHO there is no need to rewrite this right now especially when we want to have this feature in 0.8.0.',577,'AAAAA3///RQ='),(2,'2010-04-26 21:18:38','Patch Set 1:\n\nI would prefer to get some minimum level of functionality in with the work you have done already and then have Dariusz continue hacking on it.',577,'AAAAA3///SE='),(63,'2010-04-26 21:05:17','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhat should I do about this change? Should I just abandon it? As Dariusz has been accepted into Google\'s Summer of Code program, I see no reason for me to work on this. >:)',577,'AAAAA3///SM='),(6,'2010-04-26 13:12:43','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nIndexOutOfBoundException when I try to delete an entry in the branch column. Afterwards the dialog is not functionable anymore.\n\nThe precondition for enabling \"Finish\" that the same number of branches must be selected as repositories is not very usable. There could be the default \"HEAD\" for the selected repos.',577,'AAAAA3///W0='),(8,'2010-04-24 15:41:25','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n1. I open the Synchronize Wizard.\n2. Select synchronize. Then Git.\n3. I get a dialog with two repos for Egit and Jgit and their projects. The branches column is empty.\n\nNo combination of selection of repository/project enables Next or Finish',577,'AAAAA3///Y0='),(49,'2010-06-01 22:55:12','Patch Set 9: No score\n\nPatch set 8 had some issues which are fixed in patch set 9. Patch set 9 also contains SWTBot test cases for synchronization with and without local changes.\n\nRight now I\'ll move to adding commit separation into synchronize view so that we can review and merge changes based on commit not on single file change ... or maybe I should polish this patch set so that it can be merged with actual functionality ? Right now I\'m not quite sure what would be better ...',577,'AAALu3////Q='),(49,'2010-06-01 22:45:49','Uploaded patch set 9.',577,'AAALu3////U='),(4,'2010-06-16 14:28:54','Uploaded patch set 13.',577,'AAALu3///aM='),(49,'2010-06-16 07:23:27','Uploaded patch set 12.',577,'AAALu3///bc='),(2,'2010-06-15 18:55:48','Patch Set 11: No score; No score\n\nAgreed, I updated CQ 4122 with the respective core/ui patches.\n\nhttp://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4122',577,'AAALu3///cw='),(49,'2010-06-15 18:44:45','Patch Set 11: No score\n\nIntegration with Synchronize view isn\'t fully useful. There are some features that should be implemented (eg. comparing proper files in Compare view, grouping changes by commit etc.), but IMHO we can stat IP process for this patch set, because in other case it will be growing in infinite.',577,'AAALu3///dA='),(49,'2010-06-15 18:19:03','Uploaded patch set 11.',577,'AAALu3///ds='),(2,'2010-06-14 18:08:51','Patch Set 9: No score; No score\n\nDariusz, let us know if you need any help if you\'re constructing a new patch. We will want to go through the IP process soon so we can get this into the 0.9.0 stream and start iterating.',577,'AAALu3///j0='),(49,'2010-06-14 23:53:51','Patch Set 10: No score\n\nThis patch set contains JUnits for GitSyncInfo.calculateKind() and GitResourceVariantComparator.compare().\n\nI\'ve test it and synchronize view should proper decorate changes that are incoming, outgoing, addition, deletion and conflicts. But there are no changes in compare view (when we exclude local changes), this is because compare view takes local file to compare instead of taking one from Git. This should be fixed ... but for now I don\'t know how to do it, any suggestions ?\n\nTomorrow I\'ll try to split up this change into at least two patch sets. First will contain refactored UI tests, second will contain rest of changes ... maybe I\'ll split it into next two patch set one with synchronization view feature and one with test cases for previous feature. Then I think I\'ll \"fight\" ;) with compare view ...',577,'AAALu3///jQ='),(49,'2010-06-14 23:44:10','Uploaded patch set 10.',577,'AAALu3///jU='),(49,'2010-06-14 18:36:13','Patch Set 9:\n\nCurrently I\'m intensively testing synchronization, and I think that I found a bug in EGit/JGit. I\'ll fill a bug report ASAP.',577,'AAALu3///jw='),(49,'2010-06-05 14:14:34','Patch Set 9:\n\n> I would just fix the problem with the platform dependent path separator. In other places e.g. RepositoriesView we also show the full path to the GITFOLDER.\n\nFull patch to the GITFOLDER can make synchornize dialog extremely huge in some cases.\n\n> When playing around I hit the following error quite frequently:\n\nI\'ll inspect that.\n\n> I couldn\'t really find out when the synchronize action is activated in the repositories view context menu. Sometimes it\'s there sometimes its greyed out.\n\nI\'ve already fix it. Right now it is depend on project name (it should be equal with repository name), I\'ve reimplemented that and check does we have any project in workspace that is connected with selected repository\n\n> Could you cover all possible permutations in GitSyncInfo.calculateKind() with tests ?\n\nOK\n\n> I think the GitResourceVariantComparator would also deserve a test.\n\nOK\n\n> In general I think you should think about a way to move most of the logic down into org.eclipse.egit.core and then write core tests for the basic logic. They are faster, and don\'t depend on brittle label text search logic.\n\nYes, this is a good idea. I\'ll try to move as much I can to egit.core.',577,'AAALu3///uk='),(4,'2010-06-05 13:56:53','Patch Set 9:\n\nI would just fix the problem with the platform dependent path separator. In other places e.g. RepositoriesView we also show the full path to the GITFOLDER.\n\nWhen playing around I hit the following error quite frequently:\n\n\n!ENTRY org.eclipse.core.jobs 4 2 2010-06-05 15:41:12.984\n!MESSAGE An internal error occurred during: \"Git Resource Synchronization\".\n!STACK 0\njava.util.regex.PatternSyntaxException: Unexpected internal error near index 1\n\\\n ^\n	at java.util.regex.Pattern.error(Pattern.java:1713)\n	at java.util.regex.Pattern.compile(Pattern.java:1466)\n	at java.util.regex.Pattern.<init>(Pattern.java:1133)\n	at java.util.regex.Pattern.compile(Pattern.java:823)\n	at java.lang.String.replaceAll(String.java:2189)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getMembersAndStore(GitResourceVariantTree.java:399)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.members(GitResourceVariantTree.java:105)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.AbstractResourceVariantTree.mergedMembers(AbstractResourceVariantTree.java:200)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.AbstractResourceVariantTree.collectChanges(AbstractResourceVariantTree.java:173)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.AbstractResourceVariantTree.collectChanges(AbstractResourceVariantTree.java:113)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.AbstractResourceVariantTree.refresh(AbstractResourceVariantTree.java:90)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.AbstractResourceVariantTree.refresh(AbstractResourceVariantTree.java:54)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.refresh(ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.java:159)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.refresh(ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.java:126)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.ui.synchronize.RefreshSubscriberParticipantJob.doRefresh(RefreshSubscriberParticipantJob.java:116)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.ui.synchronize.RefreshParticipantJob.run(RefreshParticipantJob.java:309)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run(Worker.java:54)\n\nI couldn\'t really find out when the synchronize action is activated in the repositories view context menu. Sometimes it\'s there sometimes its greyed out.\n\nSome more thoughts about tests :\n\nCould you cover all possible permutations in \nGitSyncInfo.calculateKind() with tests ?\n\nI think the GitResourceVariantComparator would also deserve a test.\n\nIn general I think you should think about a way to move most of the logic down into org.eclipse.egit.core and then write core tests for the basic logic. They are faster, and don\'t depend on brittle label text search logic.',577,'AAALu3///us='),(49,'2010-06-05 13:20:59','Patch Set 9:\n\nIn this case seams reasonable to remove \'.git\' part from repository name, and leave only parent folder name as a repository name. What do you think about this solution ?\n\nI\'ll try to turn of workspace rebuilding.',577,'AAALu3///vI='),(4,'2010-06-05 13:14:26','Patch Set 9:\n\nThe failures are caused by platform dependent path separator [1]. On Windows the title of the synchronize dialog is\n\'Synchronize repository: egit\\.git\' and your tests expect hardcoded \'Synchronize repository: egit/.git\'. I also noticed that after the edit steps the test ide starts building. Maybe this could be switched off for these tests in order to reduce the chance of hitting timeout problems.\n\n[1] stack trace:\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find widget.\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.waitUntilWidgetAppears(SWTBotFactory.java:348)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.shells(SWTBotFactory.java:112)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.shell(SWTBotFactory.java:102)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.shell(SWTBotFactory.java:93)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.views.synchronize.SynchronizeViewTest.shouldReturnListOfChnages(SynchronizeViewTest.java:73)\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.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:619)\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 5000 ms.: Could not find shell matching: with text \'Synchronize repository: egit/.git\'\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.SWTBotFactory.waitUntilWidgetAppears(SWTBotFactory.java:346)\n	... 33 more',577,'AAALu3///vQ='),(49,'2010-06-05 11:47:35','Patch Set 9:\n\nIt looks that I should pay more attention on what I\'m exactly pushing to review :|\n\n> - both tests fail after Sycnronize... dialog has come up with WidgetNotFoundException\n\nStrange, on my Linux this works fine. Could you sen a stack trace ?\n\n> -I think we should not make this change bigger and bigger, the review overhead is already quite high since this is already a huge change\n\nOK, so now I\'ll work on stabilization of this change. I\'ll add two more tests for synchronizing with tags (branch vs. tag and tag vs. tag).',577,'AAALu3///vY='),(4,'2010-06-04 22:57:03','Patch Set 9: No score; No score\n\n- both tests fail after Sycnronize... dialog has come up with WidgetNotFoundException\n- such long wait times seem unreasonable\n- I think we should not make this change bigger and bigger, the review overhead is already quite high since this is already a huge change\n- including tests is definitively a good way to stabilize this proposal\n- I will continue testing manually soon, I need some sleep now',577,'AAALu3///w0='),(4,'2010-06-04 22:57:15','Patch Set 9: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',577,'AAALu3///ww='),(4,'2010-06-16 15:00:21','Uploaded patch set 14.',577,'AAALu3///Z0='),(4,'2010-06-16 14:34:20','Patch Set 13: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n- again rebased onto fixed test refactoring\n- CQ doesn\'t need update since diff didn\'t change\n- marked unclean IP due to CQ required',577,'AAALu3///Z8='),(4,'2010-06-16 15:39:18','Patch Set 14: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\npending CQ hence marked unclean IP',577,'AAALu3///Zc='),(49,'2010-05-25 21:26:26','Patch Set 6:\n\nGerrit brakes formatting in my last commit ... at least he don\'t do that in mail message ...',577,'AAALun///CU='),(49,'2010-05-25 21:21:08','Patch Set 6: No score\n\nMatthias Sohn:\n> Some problems I see with the current synchronize dialog:\n> - the title says:\n>     Sychronize project: org.eclipse.egit.ui\n>   and the synchronize view does this, but what if changes in the same repository \n>   span multiple projects ? Or subsequent changes are in the same repository but not\n>   the same eclipse project. E.g. first change only affects project a and second change\n>   only affects project b and both projects are in the same repository. Splitting \n>   changes during synchronization on project borders is a no-go in my view.\n\nGood point! Right now we should allow only synchronize on repository level. Right now I didn\'t notice that C Git would allow to synchronize on single resource level. Of course we can implement resource level synchronization in EGit but this could mess things up. Additionally I would prefer to merge this patch set as fast as it is possible and then work on next features for it.\n\n> - in the two combos in this dialog I can also select local branches\n> - in the left combo the local repository is name \"local\", what if I happen to have a\n>   Remote called \"local\" which is pointing to another repository I have on my local\n>   machine ? Which of the two would be hidden ? I think you need to find a different\n>   way to express that you want to synchronize against another branch in the same repo.\n\nFor now I\'ve changed \'local\' to \'local .git\' with should be more convenient. Maybe we can come up with better proposition later because IMHO this isn\'t the best solution that we can have here.\n\n> - if I select local, then I can also select HEAD and heads/master, but this comparison\n>   doesn\'t make sense since comparing a branch against itself will always yield an empty \n>   result.\n\nWheel not exactly, in this case we should see untracked and uncommited files. To be honest we don\'t compare branch against branch but current local state against selected branch.\n\n> - if I select \"origin\" / \"master\" the ref for the master branch is just \"master\", but if\n>   I try \"local\" / \"heads/master\" the ref is \"heads/master\" -> this is inconsistent\n\nOK, I\'ll fix that.\n\n> In the repositories view I see a menu entry \"Synchronize\" on remote branches, but this\n> is always grayed out so I can\'t use it\n\nIt is enabled *only* for repositories that are connected with project in workspace. It doesn\'t make sense to me to compare branches form project that doesn\'t exist in current workspace.\n\n> Tried the following scenario\n> - clone egit repository and import all the projects\n> - on this clone run: git reset --hard 55fb47b3e942fc75\n> - now we should get the commits we threw away on the local branch as the set of changes which \n>   need to be synchronized (and could be fast forwarded)\n> - multi-select all egit projects and start synchronize\n> - this has no effect (why that ? git changes are transferred in commits not regarding \n>   if these commits span 1 or multiple eclipse projects)\n> - running the same on project org.eclipse.egit.ui works: the synchronize diff\n> displayed against origin/master seems to be reasonable\n> - running synchronize operation has no effect, that\'s surely due to the fact that merge \n>   for fast forward is available just since today (Stefan\'s and Christian\'s changes). \n>   Without merge (or rebase) there is no way to pull the upstream changes into the local \n>   branch. Hence the diff shown in the synchronize view doesn\'t go away.\n> - did another change in org.eclipse.egit.ui but didn\'t commit this one\n> - again open synchronize on that project -> the not committed change is also shown, this \n>   shouldn\'t be the case as the synchronize dialog said it would compare against current \n>   local HEAD, but this change did not yet reach the current local HEAD.\n\nYes, dialog message is inconsistent ... IMHO we should establish what we want to have in synchronize view. Do we want to have only comparison of changes that are commited to repository, or we want to see all changes that are made in repository. Right now I think that we can add extra button into tool bar of synchronization view that will be include or exclude changes that are made in repository but not yet commited (eg. show/hide untracked, unstaged, uncommited files). Getting this idea more further we can add an option to context menu like \"stage\" and \"unstage\" that will simplify building commits.\n\nAnother solution would be to have two separate views. Synchronize view for comparing commited changes in one of branch/tag against another branch/tag.\n\nTo we honest I\'m huge fan of first solution (one view for synchronizing and staging changes) and I\'ll prefer reducing number of views that user need to have open to be able to fully use EGit features.\n\nReturning to main issue, I\'ll try to reproduce this issue and fix it.\n\n> Tried another scenario:\n> - do a fresh clone of jgit\n> - do some changes in org.eclipse.jgit.junit and org.eclipse.jgit.test\n> - commit these changes in one commit\n> - start synchronize from org.eclipse.jgit.junit\n> - this displays only the changes in that project but not the changes in the other\n>   project which have been committed in one single commit. \n> - I think this doesn\'t make sense since the smallest unit I could transfer \n>   during sychronize is one commit, it\'s not possible to push or pull half of a commit \n>   (or this is no longer git)\n> - hence it looks to me like we should see the sychronize operation always as an \n>   operation acting on repository level (not project level). Of course it makes sense\n>   to see which projects will be affected by a synchronization and group the changes\n>   accordingly but artificially splitting changes on project borders doesn\'t make \n>   sense in my opinion. With CVS this looks much different since CVS doesn\'t know \n>   atomic commits of changesets but only of single file revisions.\n\nYes, this is a tricky thing here, because wen we launch compare view on a file we can play with changes on a single file level. This can brake git history so maybe when we compare two branches we should represent changes in this way:\n\n|- project name\n|\\\n| |- commit\n| |\\\n| | |- changes that are in this particular commit\n| |- another commit\n\nand allow user only to merge changes on commit level and in case of conflicts allow to edit areas that are in conflict.\n\n\nStefan Lay:\n> I think we do not use the SynchronizeView API correctly here if we compare with another branch:\n> GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriber returns a baseTree and a remoteTree. As the baseTree we return the current Head. But the current Head is not the base for a three way compare in this case. Open the compare editor and select \"Show ancestor pane\": then the current Head is presented. This is wrong.\n> \n> I think the correct way would be to calculate the common ancestor of the Head and the other branch and to set this as the base. We would then have the other branch as remote and the local resource as entities to compare.\n\nThis sounds reasonable, I\'ll investigate on it.',577,'AAALun///CY='),(49,'2010-05-17 21:26:20','Patch Set 1:\n\nNot only UI tests but also junits for TagOperation.\n\nBut, yest it seams more reasonable to have both features (tagging and synchronization view  without test) in 0.8.0 than have only tagging support with unit tests',577,'AAALun///d0='),(2,'2010-05-17 21:21:07','Patch Set 1:\n\nIf you\'re referring to ui tests for tagging, I\'d vote this feature having a higher priority than those tests.',577,'AAALun///d4='),(49,'2010-05-17 21:20:04','Patch Set 1:\n\nTo be hones, before I\'ll move to this task I want to implement some unit test for tagging and after that I\'ll continue Remy\'s work.\n\nI think that before next Monday I\'ll send patches with test for tagging and then I\'ll move to this one.\n\nBut if this patch set has higher priority than junits I can change my plans.',577,'AAALun///d8='),(6,'2010-05-25 15:35:37','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nI think we do not use the SynchronizeView API correctly here if we compare with another branch:\nGitResourceVariantTreeSubscriber returns a baseTree and a remoteTree. As the baseTree we return the current Head. But the current Head is not the base for a three way compare in this case. Open the compare editor and select \"Show ancestor pane\": then the current Head is presented. This is wrong.\n\nI think the correct way would be to calculate the common ancestor of the Head and the other branch and to set this as the base. We would then have the other branch as remote and the local resource as entities to compare.',577,'AAALun///DE='),(49,'2010-05-17 23:21:17','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nMerged with current HEAD, updated commit message and externalized message strings into UIText class.',577,'AAALun///dg='),(49,'2010-05-17 23:19:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',577,'AAALun///dk='),(49,'2010-05-17 21:43:27','Patch Set 1:\n\nOK, I\'ve hope that my mentor has same attitude for this case as you ;)\n\nSo I\'m switching to this task ;> first of all I\'ll merge it with current head, add Bug id and Change-Id to commit message and work on mentioned IndexOutOfBoundException',577,'AAALun///ds='),(2,'2010-05-17 21:30:49','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'m generally pragmatic with this and think the features outweigh the tests in this case. Hell, I\'d even write the tests s you can focus on the synchronize view :)',577,'AAALun///dw='),(2,'2010-05-17 19:15:19','Patch Set 1:\n\nDariusz, now that tagging is done are you going to look at this?',577,'AAALun///eE='),(4,'2010-05-24 21:20:47','Patch Set 6: No score; No score\n\ngood progress, thanks :-)\n\nI mostly did some blackbox testing trying out the functionality you provide, here my feedback for this round:\n\nSome problems I see with the current synchronize dialog:\n- the title says:\n    Sychronize project: org.eclipse.egit.ui\n  and the synchronize view does this, but what if changes in the same repository \n  span multiple projects ? Or subsequent changes are in the same repository but not\n  the same eclipse project. E.g. first change only affects project a and second change\n  only affects project b and both projects are in the same repository. Splitting \n  changes during synchronization on project borders is a no-go in my view.\n\n- in the two combos in this dialog I can also select local branches\n- in the left combo the local repository is name \"local\", what if I happen to have a\n  Remote called \"local\" which is pointing to another repository I have on my local\n  machine ? Which of the two would be hidden ? I think you need to find a different\n  way to express that you want to synchronize against another branch in the same repo.\n- if I select local, then I can also select HEAD and heads/master, but this comparison\n  doesn\'t make sense since comparing a branch against itself will always yield an empty \n  result.\n- if I select \"origin\" / \"master\" the ref for the master branch is just \"master\", but if\n  I try \"local\" / \"heads/master\" the ref is \"heads/master\" -> this is inconsistent\n\nIn the repositories view I see a menu entry \"Synchronize\" on remote branches, but this\nis always grayed out so I can\'t use it\n\nTried the following scenario\n- clone egit repository and import all the projects\n- on this clone run: git reset --hard 55fb47b3e942fc75\n- now we should get the commits we threw away on the local branch as the set of changes which \n  need to be synchronized (and could be fast forwarded)\n- multi-select all egit projects and start synchronize\n- this has no effect (why that ? git changes are transferred in commits not regarding \n  if these commits span 1 or multiple eclipse projects)\n- running the same on project org.eclipse.egit.ui works: the synchronize diff\ndisplayed against origin/master seems to be reasonable\n- running synchronize operation has no effect, that\'s surely due to the fact that merge \n  for fast forward is available just since today (Stefan\'s and Christian\'s changes). \n  Without merge (or rebase) there is no way to pull the upstream changes into the local \n  branch. Hence the diff shown in the synchronize view doesn\'t go away.\n- did another change in org.eclipse.egit.ui but didn\'t commit this one\n- again open synchronize on that project -> the not committed change is also shown, this \n  shouldn\'t be the case as the synchronize dialog said it would compare against current \n  local HEAD, but this change did not yet reach the current local HEAD.\n\nTried another scenario:\n- do a fresh clone of jgit\n- do some changes in org.eclipse.jgit.junit and org.eclipse.jgit.test\n- commit these changes in one commit\n- start synchronize from org.eclipse.jgit.junit\n- this displays only the changes in that project but not the changes in the other\n  project which have been committed in one single commit. \n- I think this doesn\'t make sense since the smallest unit I could transfer \n  during sychronize is one commit, it\'s not possible to push or pull half of a commit \n  (or this is no longer git)\n- hence it looks to me like we should see the sychronize operation always as an \n  operation acting on repository level (not project level). Of course it makes sense\n  to see which projects will be affected by a synchronization and group the changes\n  accordingly but artificially splitting changes on project borders doesn\'t make \n  sense in my opinion. With CVS this looks much different since CVS doesn\'t know \n  atomic commits of changesets but only of single file revisions.',577,'AAALun///F0='),(4,'2010-05-22 22:45:18','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nI tried the following:\n- created fresh clone of jgit repo using git repositories view\n- import all jgit projects\n- select Synchronize with... from a jgit project\'s context menu\n\n- the dialog talks about selecting source and destination, but there is only one row which looks like remote and branch selection. Is this source or destination ? Where can I select the other one ?\n\n- select origin (left combo) and master (right combo)\n- pressing ok has no effect\n\n- changed some files in this jgit project and save them to disk\n- try again select origin master, again pressing ok has no effect\n\n- commit these changes and try again, again no effect\n\n- trying with origin stable-0.7 seems to work\n\n- didn\'t we agree on having just one menu entry \"Synchronize...\" for now ? I think if the synchronize dialog remembers the settings from the last run this is completely sufficient.\n\n- settings in synchronize dialog marked with checkbox \"default\" are not remembered when reopening the dialog\n\nIt seems I do not fully understand how to use the dialog, could you provide some hints about its usage ...',577,'AAALun///H0='),(49,'2010-05-22 23:50:17','Uploaded patch set 6.',577,'AAALun///Hs='),(49,'2010-05-22 23:32:10','Patch Set 5: No score\n\n> - the dialog talks about selecting source and destination, but there is only one row which looks like remote and branch selection. Is this source or destination ? Where can I select the other one ?\n\nMisleading in dialog message is caused because I\'ve forgot to change it after I decide to resign for letting select source branch/tag. Right now I\'ve updated the message and it should be more suitable for current situation.\n\n> - select origin (left combo) and master (right combo)\n> - pressing ok has no effect\n\nFixed.\n\n> - didn\'t we agree on having just one menu entry \"Synchronize...\" for now ? I think if the synchronize dialog remembers the settings from the last run this is completely sufficient.\n\nChanged.\n\n> - settings in synchronize dialog marked with checkbox \"default\" are not remembered when reopening the dialog\n\nTo be honest I don\'t know where and how can I save that information. Could you please refer me to some documentation or HOWOT\'s how (and where) that data should be saved.\n\n> It seems I do not fully understand how to use the dialog, could you provide some hints about its usage ...\n\nApart from that issue with \'master\' branch, using \'synchronize dialog\' should be very simple, just select repository name and ref name which one you want to synchronize and click \'OK\'.\n\nbtw. There is also an option to launch synchronization form \'Repositories view\'. In this case you should select \'Synchronize\' from context menu for branch. This option is only available when there is existing project in workspace that is associated with that particular repository.',577,'AAALun///Hw='),(2,'2010-05-24 00:17:25','Patch Set 6: No score; No score\n\nWhile trying to compare my local to 0.7.1 I got this exception...\n\n!MESSAGE \"Unable to read repository for org.eclipse.jgit\n!STACK 0\norg.eclipse.jgit.errors.IncorrectObjectTypeException: Object a0850fe2ee26a67a45d425b79a9cfdc4d43b6742 is not a commit.\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.lib.Repository.mapCommit(Repository.java:526)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.lib.Repository.mapCommit(Repository.java:477)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.initialize(GitResourceVariantTree.java:152)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.fetchVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:333)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.fetchVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:357)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getResourceVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:201)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.getSyncInfo(ResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.java:52)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberSyncInfoEventHandler.handleChange(SubscriberSyncInfoEventHandler.java:89)\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)',577,'AAALun///HY='),(49,'2010-05-22 12:07:33','Uploaded patch set 5.',577,'AAALun///Ig='),(49,'2010-05-20 21:50:34','Uploaded patch set 4.',577,'AAALun///K0='),(49,'2010-05-19 03:42:16','Patch Set 3:\n\nDone with comments.\n\nI\'ll push new patch set when we agree on context menu action for invoking \'synchronization view\' (see <a href=\"https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=309582#c18\" target=\"_blank\">309582#18</a>)',577,'AAALun///Vo='),(63,'2010-05-18 23:32:31','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nMatthias, this is the way all my coworkers sign our source code. IBM owns the copyright to the code, not me. I\'ve never been told to put my own name in it. Just look at any random Eclipse source file and you will find IBM at the top.',577,'AAALun///Wg='),(4,'2010-05-18 23:10:31','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nIt\'s not yet clear to me what I can do with this change. I didn\'t find a way to get finish or next button enabled (seems Robin has the same question).\n\nRemy: any specific reason why you don\'t want to put your name under contributor but IBM instead ? If I remember correctly the legal team explained that the contributor section in the license header is meant to give credits to the developers which did all the hard work.',577,'AAALun///Wo='),(63,'2010-05-18 23:56:29','Patch Set 3:\n\nI wouldn\'t call it that. :) Personally, I\'ve seen files with people\'s name and files with company names. It\'s caught my eye but I\'ve never bothered to ask anyone about it. This is the first time I\'ve been personally asked about my source code. ;)',577,'AAALun///WU='),(8,'2010-05-18 22:49:10','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\n',577,'AAALun///Ww='),(4,'2010-05-18 23:48:35','Patch Set 3:\n\nRemy: ok, I understand, IBM is doing it this way\nthat\'s just lack of experience from my side ;-)',577,'AAALun///WY='),(49,'2010-05-18 20:21:17','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nFixed IndexOutOfBound exception.\n\nNow I can move to implementing new features ;>',577,'AAALun///X4='),(49,'2010-05-18 20:20:29','Uploaded patch set 3.',577,'AAALun///X8='),(2,'2010-05-18 20:45:39','Patch Set 3:\n\nHere\'s the CQ for when we need it...\n\nhttps://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4122',577,'AAALun///Xk='),(2,'2010-05-18 20:41:53','Patch Set 3:\n\n(I\'m putting pressure because next week is our last chance really to get stuff in for 0.8.0 imho)',577,'AAALun///Xo='),(2,'2010-05-18 20:41:25','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nOne question to ask is when do we want to do the initial CQ for this? I think it\'s easier to get what we have when it reaches an acceptable level and then just iterate in <250 line patches to avoid the CQ switch.\n\nWhat do people think?',577,'AAALun///Xs='),(4,'2010-05-31 20:52:51','Patch Set 7:\n\nyes, please push the fixed patchset',577,'AAALun//+6c='),(49,'2010-06-01 06:43:54','Patch Set 8:\n\nRight now for me I\'ll prefer to keep this together because it will be easier to maintain changes in both area (synchronization view implementation and utnit test case). But then when sync-view will be ready for integration I can split it into 3 patch sets.\nIs this approach also fine by you ?',577,'AAALun//+6E='),(49,'2010-05-31 17:55:02','Patch Set 7:\n\n@Matthias:\nThis NPE is one of issues that \'should never happen\' ;) I\'ve already fix it. Should I push this small change to gerrit ?\n\n@Robin:\nGood point! This is quite huge change and we can have many strange issues and regressions. I\'ll start working on test coverage for this part today.',577,'AAALun//+6g='),(4,'2010-06-01 00:02:24','Patch Set 8: No score; No score\n\nIMHO this should be transformed into a patch series:\n- refactoring of existing swtbot tests\n- synchronize view implementation\n- new swtbot test for synchronize view\n\nOtherwise this change is getting larger and larger and afterwards it will be hard to understand the history.\n\nLet me know if you need help to split this up into a patch series.',577,'AAALun//+6M='),(49,'2010-05-31 21:07:09','Patch Set 8: No score\n\nHere it is, it has also initial swtbot test case implementation.',577,'AAALun//+6U='),(49,'2010-05-31 21:06:02','Uploaded patch set 8.',577,'AAALun//+6Y='),(8,'2010-05-31 06:00:21','Patch Set 7: No score; No score\n\nSome tests would be helpful. It\'s hard for others that find a bug to do any form of regression test it since it is hard to know what to test.',577,'AAALun//+7M='),(4,'2010-05-30 23:10:18','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nI did a first quick try (will do more testing tomorrow) with a test copy of jgit, \nadded some local commits to it and then ran synchronize to compare\nlocal/HEAD against origin/master, \nthat hit the following NPE:\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.ui.internal.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.members(GitResourceVariantTree.java:98)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.members(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriber.java:74)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.collect(SubscriberEventHandler.java:200)\n	at org.eclipse.team.internal.core.subscribers.SubscriberEventHandler.processEvent(SubscriberEventHandler.java:310)\n	... 3 more',577,'AAALun//+7Q='),(49,'2010-05-30 21:52:08','Patch Set 7: No score\n\nThis patch set contains fixes for synchronization with tags and minor fixes in localizations.\nIt also contains two new features:\n* user can select with branch should be treat as source and with one as destination\n* using \'synchronize with\' dialog user can define does local uncommited/unstaged changes should be shown in synchronization view or not. Local changes are always hidden when synchronization is launched from \'repositories view\' or \'synchronize wizard\'\n\nThings that I\'ve plan to include in next patch set:\n* I\'ve notice that for some reasons in synchronize view are included files that doesn\'t differs, this needs to be investigated and fixed.\n* add grouping changes in commits in synchronization view so that we can merge changes on commit level.',577,'AAALun//+7U='),(49,'2010-05-30 21:44:27','Uploaded patch set 7.',577,'AAALun//+7Y='),(49,'2010-06-17 17:36:07','Patch Set 14:\n\nYes now it is time for next iteration (and fixing unit test for this one ;)). Before it will be merged into master it should be merge it with latest Mathias Kinzler Repositories view so that we can launch synchronize for Repositories view context menu.\n\nI\'ll do that today evening and push it once again.',577,'AAALv3///80='),(63,'2010-06-17 16:32:00','Patch Set 14:\n\nI\'ve been really busy with e4 for the past month but I just wanted to take the time to thank everyone for their time and effort in polishing up this contribution!\n\nKeep it up, Dariusz!',577,'AAALv3///88='),(4,'2010-06-17 15:56:00','Patch Set 14: IP review completed\n\ngreat, now we are ready for the next iteration',577,'AAALv3///9A='),(2,'2010-06-17 15:47:17','Patch Set 14:\n\n+1, IP review is completed.\n\nNow it\'s time to reiterate :)',577,'AAALv3///9E='),(2,'2010-06-17 15:47:12','Patch Set 14: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, IP review is completed.\n\nNow it\'s time to reiterate :)',577,'AAALv3///9I='),(2,'2010-06-18 00:13:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',577,'AAALwH////c='),(2,'2010-06-18 00:13:33','Patch Set 16: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nMerged, finally :)',577,'AAALwH////g='),(2,'2010-06-18 00:12:48','Uploaded patch set 16.',577,'AAALwH////k='),(NULL,'2010-06-18 00:07:45','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.',577,'AAALwH////o='),(2,'2010-06-18 00:07:44','Patch Set 15: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, thanks for your hard work on this everyone.',577,'AAALwH////s='),(49,'2010-06-18 00:05:56','Uploaded patch set 15.',577,'AAALwH////w='),(49,'2010-06-18 00:26:58','Patch Set 16:\n\nThanks all of you for cooperation ;)',577,'AAALwH////Y='),(6,'2010-04-20 16:22:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',578,'AAAAA3///h0='),(2,'2010-04-20 16:26:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',578,'AAAAA3///hk='),(2,'2010-04-20 16:26:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, looks good Remy, thanks.',578,'AAAAA3///ho='),(2,'2010-04-20 16:26:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',578,'AAAAA3///hs='),(NULL,'2010-04-20 16:22:28','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.',578,'AAAAA3///hw='),(2,'2010-04-20 15:00:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',579,'AAAAA3///h8='),(2,'2010-04-20 15:00:06','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGreat catch Remy.',579,'AAAAA3///iA='),(2,'2010-04-20 14:59:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',579,'AAAAA3///iE='),(2,'2010-04-20 14:55:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',580,'AAAAA3///iI='),(2,'2010-04-20 14:55:19','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good Remy, thanks.',580,'AAAAA3///iM='),(2,'2010-04-20 14:54:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',580,'AAAAA3///iQ='),(45,'2010-04-26 07:44:49','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nI am sorry, I wanted to change this patch, but something went\nwrong, and the new version is now a new patch.\n\nTherefore I just abandon this.',581,'AAAAA3///Xc='),(4,'2010-04-25 21:57:46','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI think your change improves the graphical layout of the history view but I have some style nits:\n\nTry to find a clearer commit message for your change. Also start it with an upper case letter.\n\nI believe you want to say that in the history view the graphical tags used to mark tags, branches and symbolic refs were not exactly aligned horizontally with the log message header of untagged entries.\n\nFind some more comments inlined.',581,'AAAAA3///YI='),(63,'2010-04-19 23:38:42','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nI realize that I\'ve left the code in the UI bundle but I wanted to get people thinking about how to refactor the code so that it can be reused more easily. Having to create the action directly and then running it is very annoying as it does not give the developer any control over what files are being committed.\n\nI\'ve left the index analysis code in the CommitAction since that\'s necessary for the dialog as the dialog currently a) ignores selection, b) shows \"everything\", and c) even lets people unselect what to commit. This is unfortunate as I feel dirty about having to pass the collection of un-indexed and un-tracked files into CommitOperation from CommitAction.',582,'AAAAA3///kk='),(63,'2010-05-21 20:40:17','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nStefan implemented something similar and that\'s been merged.\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/734',582,'AAALun///Ik='),(2,'2010-04-20 14:40:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',583,'AAAAA3///ig='),(2,'2010-04-20 14:40:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood catch Remy, thanks.',583,'AAAAA3///ik='),(2,'2010-04-20 14:39:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',583,'AAAAA3///io='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:23:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',584,'AAAAA3///j0='),(1,'2010-04-20 01:23:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',584,'AAAAA3///jw='),(2,'2010-04-20 14:46:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',585,'AAAAA3///ic='),(2,'2010-04-20 14:46:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',585,'AAAAA3///iU='),(2,'2010-04-20 14:46:44','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',585,'AAAAA3///iY='),(6,'2010-04-20 16:28:44','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWas already committed by Chris',586,'AAAAA3///hc='),(2,'2010-04-20 16:27:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nCan you abandon this?\n\nI pushed ebbaf062ba76916d2de47b91f5e12a68a2ad3a5f',586,'AAAAA3///hg='),(51,'2010-04-20 19:02:22','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',587,'AAAAA3///hU='),(1,'2010-04-22 15:16:06','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',588,'AAAAA3///f8='),(51,'2010-04-26 15:33:17','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nPublish comments.',588,'AAAAA3///UM='),(8,'2010-04-24 12:16:01','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\n',588,'AAAAA3///ZE='),(1,'2010-06-07 21:05:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',588,'AAALu3///t4='),(1,'2010-06-07 21:05:19','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',588,'AAALu3///t8='),(4,'2010-06-07 20:59:58','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\nverified that unit test suite passes successfully',588,'AAALu3///uA='),(1,'2010-06-05 02:10:14','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThis now looks good to me.  I rebased onto master and cleaned up a couple of minor compile errors caused by other parallel changes, but haven\'t had a chance to run the unit tests over again to verify we don\'t have a regression.',588,'AAALu3///wE='),(1,'2010-06-05 02:09:27','Uploaded patch set 3.',588,'AAALu3///wI='),(51,'2010-04-29 18:59:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',588,'AAALuX///7g='),(63,'2010-04-21 22:57:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',589,'AAAAA3///g0='),(63,'2010-04-21 22:40:49','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nClearly doing something wrong here as I keep getting this tools/version.sh file included.',589,'AAAAA3///g4='),(63,'2010-04-21 22:32:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',589,'AAAAA3///g8='),(2,'2010-04-22 01:13:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',589,'AAAAA3///go='),(2,'2010-04-22 01:13:30','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Remy.',589,'AAAAA3///gs='),(2,'2010-04-22 01:13:14','Uploaded patch set 4.',589,'AAAAA3///gw='),(2,'2010-04-26 22:40:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',590,'AAAAA3///Q4='),(2,'2010-04-26 22:40:51','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Remy!',590,'AAAAA3///Q8='),(4,'2010-04-26 21:23:24','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nStyle nit: the commit message header (first line of the commit message) should be shortened so that it fits on a single line. Simply move the explanations to the body of the commit message.',590,'AAAAA3///R0='),(2,'2010-04-26 22:40:36','Uploaded patch set 4.',590,'AAAAA3///RA='),(63,'2010-04-26 22:39:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',590,'AAAAA3///RE='),(63,'2010-04-26 22:37:03','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nWow, it\'s tough trying to think of a meaningful message that\'s only one line long. :O',590,'AAAAA3///RI='),(63,'2010-04-26 22:35:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',590,'AAAAA3///RM='),(2,'2010-04-26 16:58:15','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nI plan on pushing this change after lunch and doing the subsequent rebase.\n\nThanks Mathias.',590,'AAAAA3///To='),(46,'2010-04-26 16:57:15','Patch Set 1:\n\nWould be good to put the bug number (309600) into the commit message.',590,'AAAAA3///Ts='),(46,'2010-04-26 16:55:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',590,'AAAAA3///Tw='),(1,'2010-04-22 20:54:21','Patch Set 1:\n\nRobin, do you mean create a new api bundle, and a new api.test bundle?\n\nI\'m not.  I think most consumers of org.eclipse.jgit are going to want to use this API code.  So including it into the existing org.eclipse.jgit bundle has very little downside.\n\nI guess my question is, what is the motivation for putting the api code into its own bundle?',591,'AAAAA3///c8='),(4,'2010-04-23 08:10:45','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\n',591,'AAAAA3///cE='),(8,'2010-04-22 19:00:18','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nI\'d be inclined to put this into two new bundles',591,'AAAAA3///dA='),(1,'2010-04-22 18:38:57','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nPlenty of good stuff with this change.  But I think I wound up with more questions than concrete suggestions in my comments below.',591,'AAAAA3///dQ='),(4,'2010-04-27 23:58:12','Patch Set 4: No score; No score\n\n',591,'AAAAA3///Lo='),(1,'2010-04-27 23:34:26','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nYay, I\'m pretty happy with this.  I\'m down to style-nits and a question about how we should handle a 2nd call() invocation attempt.',591,'AAAAA3///Lw='),(5,'2010-04-27 21:20:23','Uploaded patch set 4.',591,'AAAAA3///MU='),(5,'2010-04-27 20:41:19','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nI had to change the Exception handling and also changed the policy so that only one invocation (call to call()) is allowed per instance. Sorry, this makes the diff quite big.',591,'AAAAA3///MY='),(5,'2010-04-27 15:09:36','Patch Set 1:\n\nsorry, I forgot to all my drafted answers to your comments. Although some of them may not be outdated I\'ll sent them now.',591,'AAAAA3///N4='),(1,'2010-04-26 21:45:08','Patch Set 3:\n\nI just see an extra bundle as too much extra complexity.\n\nWe\'re encouraging downstream consumers to use Import-Package rather than Require-Bundle to permit us to repackage easier.  Maven users might be impacted if we moved the API code in the future, but its a relatively minor thing to update in your application\'s pom.xml when you also update the version number.  So I think we\'re OK to split this later if/when it becomes necessary to do.',591,'AAAAA3///Rk='),(8,'2010-04-26 21:38:43','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nShawn asked Robin: I guess my question is, what is the motivation for putting the api code into its own bundle?\n\nI was thinking about this another layer. But if everyone wants to use both then the same bundle is ok. They are in different packages at least.',591,'AAAAA3///Rw='),(1,'2010-04-26 15:15:55','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nCommitCommand looks fine.  A couple of minor nits, but otherwise we can take it.  The logic is correct.\n\nLog is another animal.  I like the new add API, it reads pretty simple to me.  But I think just raised a lot more questions about RevWalk\'s current implementation.',591,'AAAAA3///Ug='),(5,'2010-04-26 11:40:31','Uploaded patch set 3.',591,'AAAAA3///W4='),(5,'2010-04-26 09:29:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',591,'AAAAA3///XQ='),(5,'2010-05-07 14:33:48','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nworked on Robins comments:\n\nJGitInternalExceptions is now a runtime exception. I checked all the places where we throw it and think that the users of this API will very likely not able to react effectively on this kind of exception. Maybe they\'ll catch it and retry the operation.\n\nsetCallable() and checkCallable() are still protected. Maybe somebody will subclass commands outside of this package and then we need it to be protected.',591,'AAALun///3U='),(5,'2010-05-07 14:28:28','Uploaded patch set 9.',591,'AAALun///3Y='),(8,'2010-05-05 20:13:40','Patch Set 8: No score; No score\n\nIf external subclasses do not need to call it, make it package private. If some users outside the package needs to call it you need to open it up and using protected (in this case) and document the restriction. At least eclipse has a numbner of special @-notations for this purpose.\n\nRegardless of whether it is part of the API, it should be documented since it is used in so many places.\n\nAbout the exceptions you are probably mostly right, exception for \"internal\" in the name. If it is truly an \"ouch, something bad that we have no idea about what it is\", it should be a RuntimeException and not a checked one.',591,'AAALun///8s='),(5,'2010-05-05 14:25:16','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\njust fixed a typo in commit message.\n\nRobin, regarding your comments:\nThe methods setCallable() and checkCallable() are intentionally \"protected\". User\'s of this API are not allowed to use these methods.\nBut, since they are protected I was forced to officially javadoc them. Therefore they now are visible in our JavaDocs for this API. By making them package-private (no modifier instead of protected) I would be allowed to not even document them. Your opinion?\n\nRegarding the comments which Exceptions are thrown: I like that with the current implementation the developer who is doing a commit() is forced to handle a different set of exceptions then the developer doing a log() and none of them has to catch java.lang.Exception. Look at this code:\n\npublic void test2() throws JGitInternalException {\n	Git git = new Git(db);\n	try {\n		git.log().call();\n	} catch (NoHeadException e) {\n	}\n\n	try {\n		git.commit().call();\n	} catch (NoHeadException e) {\n	} catch (NoMessageException e) {\n	} catch (UnmergedPathException e) {\n	} catch (ConcurrentRefUpdateException e) {\n	}\n}\n\nWould you prefer a API which \"throws Exception\"?',591,'AAALun///9I='),(5,'2010-05-05 13:54:01','Uploaded patch set 8.',591,'AAALun///9Q='),(5,'2010-05-10 13:20:05','Uploaded patch set 10.',591,'AAALun///uc='),(5,'2010-05-10 13:21:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',591,'AAALun///uU='),(5,'2010-05-10 13:21:26','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',591,'AAALun///uY='),(5,'2010-04-28 15:04:02','Patch Set 4:\n\nAgain I had to change a little bit the structure to be able to process all comments. The main thing this time is the implementation of a check that you can\'t call call() and any setters when the command has been already invoked.\n\nNothing new other than that.',591,'AAALuX////E='),(5,'2010-04-28 15:03:43','Uploaded patch set 5.',591,'AAALuX////I='),(8,'2010-05-02 21:50:33','Patch Set 7: No score; No score\n\nChristian wrote:\n>This was my first idea, but it didn\'t worked out when trying to implement it. Problem is that every Command implements call() but throws a different set of exceptions Although we have a common interface the implementations differ in the set of exceptions they throw.\n\nThe call interface that you implement already has \"throws Exception\". Do we need it?\n\nAs for the state state. This is a public API, which means we want something that can stay as it is, Ideally forever. If it was an internal thing it would be less important, but it leaks through the setState (now setCallable) method. \n\nAlso: Spelling error in commit message \"This API is intendet\"',591,'AAALuX///2Y='),(5,'2010-04-30 20:11:11','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',591,'AAALuX///5g='),(5,'2010-04-30 12:16:18','Patch Set 6:\n\nRobin: regarding your proposal\n\n> I think the state-without-a-name is a problem here. What\n> does it mean? It it cannot be name it is not defined and\n> I don\'t think we want that. How about having more flags.\n> checkState could check all flags.\n\nYou\'re now the second one who doesn\'t like this. Ok, I\'ll give it a specific name e.g. \"callable\". Maybe we\'ll have even more flags later, but up to know I only need \"callable\".\n\n> Make the call to call() an internal one and wrap iit so\n> commands gets executed through that wrapper. The wrapper \n> then keeps track of the state to each command doesm\'t \n> have to deall with the unnamed state.\n\nThis was my first idea, but it didn\'t worked out when trying to implement it. Problem is that every Command implements call() but throws a different set of exceptions. Although we have a common interface the implementations differ in the set of exceptions they throw.\n\nIf I would do like you suggested I would force user to call the wrappers call() method which will always only \"throws Exception\".',591,'AAALuX///6k='),(5,'2010-04-30 13:26:00','Uploaded patch set 7.',591,'AAALuX///6Q='),(8,'2010-04-30 06:35:58','Patch Set 6: No score; No score\n\nI think the state-without-a-name is a problem here. What does it mean? It it cannot be name it is not defined and\nI don\'t think we want that. How about having more flags. checkState could check all flags.\n\nYou may want two flags/states. gooaAndDone, badAndDone, notDoneYet.\n\nMake the call to call() an internal one and wrap iit so commands gets executed through that wrapper. The wrapper then keeps track of the state to each command doesm\'t have to deall with the unnamed state.\n\nexecute() {\n   try {\n       call();\n       setState(DONE);\n   } catch (RuntimeException e) {\n       setState(FAILED);\n       throw e;\n   }\n}',591,'AAALuX///7A='),(5,'2010-04-29 11:25:41','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',591,'AAALuX///8k='),(1,'2010-04-28 16:55:56','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nWe\'re getting there...  :-)',591,'AAALuX///90='),(5,'2010-04-28 20:50:30','Patch Set 5:\n\nminor changes - just incoroporating some of your comments.',591,'AAALuX///9Q='),(5,'2010-04-28 20:48:58','Uploaded patch set 6.',591,'AAALuX///9U='),(63,'2010-04-23 10:15:12','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nThanks, this looks good!',592,'AAAAA3///bc='),(44,'2010-04-23 09:00:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',592,'AAAAA3///bg='),(63,'2010-04-22 23:15:42','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nHi Jens, thanks for implementing this. I\'ve inlined a few comments, what do you think?',592,'AAAAA3///co='),(2,'2010-04-23 16:42:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',592,'AAAAA3///ZQ='),(2,'2010-04-23 16:42:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, beautiful.',592,'AAAAA3///ZU='),(63,'2010-04-23 00:51:31','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nTo see a bug that is caused by this problem, just show the history of a file that\'s under version control. Then right-click on a revision and select \'Open\'. If you do it again, a second editor is opened even though it should\'ve just reused the existing one.\n\nAs to the implementation of the two methods, I actually just asked JDT to generate them for me. The generated method fixes the problem but it seems to me that because RevCommit enforces an identity check in its equals(Object) implementation, perhaps we should be comparing the two values of commit.name()?\n\nThe ObjectId probably also needs to be considered. Having one null value and one non-null value does not necessarily indicate they are not equal as it may merely hint at the fact that the former hasn\'t had getStorage(IProgressMonitor) called on it yet.',593,'AAAAA3///ck='),(2,'2010-06-01 17:56:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',593,'AAALu3////0='),(2,'2010-06-01 18:00:35','Uploaded patch set 3.',593,'AAALu3////w='),(4,'2010-06-03 22:14:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',593,'AAALu3///7Q='),(4,'2010-06-03 22:13:20','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCherry-picked on top of current HEAD since this change did depend on an abandoned one.\n\nShortened headline of commit message.',593,'AAALu3///7U='),(4,'2010-06-03 22:11:53','Uploaded patch set 4.',593,'AAALu3///7Y='),(6,'2010-06-01 15:36:42','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nI think that it should be sufficient to use commit.hashCode() and commit.equals(Object).\n\ncommit cannot be null and it is an instance of AnyObjectId which is supposed to be unique.',593,'AAALun//+5w='),(8,'2010-04-24 12:19:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',594,'AAAAA3///Y4='),(8,'2010-04-24 12:18:59','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',594,'AAAAA3///Y8='),(8,'2010-04-24 12:18:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\nThe fix is ok. We should however, have unit test for this and any corruption related logic.',594,'AAAAA3///ZA='),(4,'2010-04-25 10:31:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',595,'AAAAA3///Yg='),(4,'2010-04-25 10:31:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nyeah, this helps saving some more space',595,'AAAAA3///Yk='),(1,'2010-04-26 14:17:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',596,'AAAAA3///Wg='),(1,'2010-04-26 14:17:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',596,'AAAAA3///Wk='),(4,'2010-04-25 09:43:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',596,'AAAAA3///Yo='),(4,'2010-04-25 22:05:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',597,'AAAAA3///YA='),(4,'2010-04-25 22:04:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',597,'AAAAA3///YE='),(1,'2010-04-26 14:39:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',598,'AAAAA3///V4='),(1,'2010-04-26 14:39:18','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nI\'m fine with the approach being used.  A couple of minor nits below.  But in my opinion, lets do this, and just go ahead and carry out the rest of the work so we can merge it.',598,'AAAAA3///V8='),(2,'2010-05-18 14:26:32','Patch Set 2: No score; IP review completed\n\n+1 from PMC, just clean it up and we\'ll be good to go :)',598,'AAALun///aQ='),(4,'2010-05-18 14:04:41','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nWow, this is a big piece of work requiring a lot of patience.\n\nWe need PMC approval to IP approve this change (Sasa is my colleague, SAP is member company).',598,'AAALun///aU='),(9,'2010-05-18 09:30:22','Uploaded patch set 2.',598,'AAALun///cs='),(1,'2010-05-19 21:50:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',598,'AAALun///Qg='),(1,'2010-05-19 21:50:08','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',598,'AAALun///Qk='),(1,'2010-05-19 21:49:45','Uploaded patch set 4.',598,'AAALun///Qo='),(1,'2010-05-19 21:26:35','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nI\'m going to try and cherry-pick this over current master, and correct the few comments I have.  I agree with Matthias, we need to merge this sooner rather than later.',598,'AAALun///Qs='),(4,'2010-05-19 16:00:32','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI am happy with this change. \n\nChris did grant the PMC approval hence setting IP flag to +1.\n\nI agree to Sasa that we should add the NON-NLS comments in a separate change since it\'s a lot of work to review this change again. Even worse would be the need for another rebase which is getting more and more likely the bigger this change grows.',598,'AAALun///SI='),(9,'2010-05-19 15:05:54','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nAddressed all comments from Matthias and Robin.\nFixed as suggested in most of the cases.\nHowever, had additional comments/questions in some cases.',598,'AAALun///SM='),(9,'2010-05-19 15:02:23','Uploaded patch set 3.',598,'AAALun///SQ='),(8,'2010-05-18 20:34:38','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\nIf I were to translate some of this I\'d like some hints about what is internal technical stuff and what the user should be able to interpret without assistance, so I could skip the internal stuff when translating.',598,'AAALun///Xw='),(4,'2010-04-26 13:48:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',599,'AAAAA3///Wo='),(4,'2010-04-26 13:48:50','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current HEAD\n- corrected Change-Id',599,'AAAAA3///Ws='),(4,'2010-04-26 13:47:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',599,'AAAAA3///Ww='),(46,'2010-04-26 15:16:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',600,'AAAAA3///Uc='),(1,'2010-04-26 15:19:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',600,'AAAAA3///UQ='),(1,'2010-04-26 15:19:25','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\n',600,'AAAAA3///UU='),(1,'2010-04-26 15:17:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',600,'AAAAA3///UY='),(1,'2010-04-26 14:41:40','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',600,'AAAAA3///Vw='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:33:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',601,'AAAAA3///Sk='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:33:21','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Mathias.',601,'AAAAA3///So='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:33:06','Uploaded patch set 4.',601,'AAAAA3///Ss='),(46,'2010-04-26 11:20:39','Uploaded patch set 3.',601,'AAAAA3///XA='),(46,'2010-04-26 11:17:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',601,'AAAAA3///XE='),(63,'2010-04-26 10:28:35','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nI don\'t see a commit message and GitImportProjectsWizard seems to have no license headers.',601,'AAAAA3///XI='),(46,'2010-04-26 11:21:08','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBotched the change-id',602,'AAAAA3///W8='),(1,'2010-04-27 14:19:35','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nMinor style nits.  Also pending a respin of the API change.',603,'AAAAA3///Oc='),(1,'2010-05-12 23:07:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',603,'AAALun///kk='),(1,'2010-05-12 23:07:41','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNote: I had to rebase this as it was on an older version of the API change.',603,'AAALun///ko='),(1,'2010-05-12 23:06:35','Uploaded patch set 3.',603,'AAALun///ks='),(1,'2010-05-12 23:05:26','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',603,'AAALun///kw='),(5,'2010-04-29 16:04:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',603,'AAALuX///70='),(5,'2010-04-29 15:59:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nworked mainly on the right output after commit was succesfull',603,'AAALuX///74='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:35:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Mathias.',604,'AAAAA3///Sc='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:35:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',604,'AAAAA3///Sg='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:35:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',604,'AAAAA3///SY='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:26:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',605,'AAAAA3///S0='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:25:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',605,'AAAAA3///S4='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:26:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',605,'AAAAA3///Sw='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:38:07','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks!',606,'AAAAA3///P0='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:37:51','Uploaded patch set 3.',606,'AAAAA3///P4='),(NULL,'2010-04-27 13:14:22','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.',606,'AAAAA3///P8='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:38:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',606,'AAAAA3///Pw='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:14:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood job. I would probably send an email to egit-dev to remind people to log this way from now on.',606,'AAAAA3///QA='),(63,'2010-04-27 11:37:16','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nThis looks good, Jens. I\'ll start altering my own patches too once this is in. Thanks for doing this!',606,'AAAAA3///QI='),(44,'2010-04-27 11:16:50','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nHi Remy, Chris,\n\nI introduced error handling using StatusManager and adopted the 3 classes in the change. If this pattern looks good for you I can adopt existing handling in further commits.\n\nBest regards\n\nJens',606,'AAAAA3///QU='),(44,'2010-04-27 11:13:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',606,'AAAAA3///QY='),(2,'2010-04-26 21:52:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nJens, can you look at using \'StatusManager\' in the EGit code base instead?',606,'AAAAA3///RY='),(44,'2010-04-26 16:39:10','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nHi Chris,\n\none comment on the error handling code above: there are cases where the Status object of the CoreExeption does not contain a Throwable. In this case the call stack of the exception is not logged.\nExampe: TeamExecption constructor\n\n	public TeamException(String message) {\n		this(message, null);\n	}\n\n=> CoreException with status.getException() == null',606,'AAAAA3///T0='),(2,'2010-04-26 16:32:20','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhen did StatusManager become API?\n\nEGit still needs to run on 3.4 for the 3.6 release :/',606,'AAAAA3///T4='),(63,'2010-04-26 16:23:21','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nChris, I hope PDE is not actually logging errors to the org.eclipse.core.resources bundle but to your own bundles. ;)\n\nWith regards to showing errors, we should be using StatusManager instead of popping up MessageDialogs or ErrorDialogs. This allows customization at the product level for the handling statuses.',606,'AAAAA3///T8='),(63,'2010-04-26 17:13:17','Patch Set 1:\n\nChris, we introduced org.eclipse.ui.statushandlers.StatusManager in 3.3.',606,'AAAAA3///Tk='),(2,'2010-04-26 16:15:08','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nOne idea is that we take Activator.logError and make it a bit smarter so we can get rid of all those MessageDialog references everywhere... for example in PDE we do something like this in our activator...\n\n	public static void logException(Throwable e, final String title, String message) {\n		if (e instanceof InvocationTargetException) {\n			e = ((InvocationTargetException) e).getTargetException();\n		}\n		IStatus status = null;\n		if (e instanceof CoreException)\n			status = ((CoreException) e).getStatus();\n		else {\n			if (message == null)\n				message = e.getMessage();\n			if (message == null)\n				message = e.toString();\n			status = new Status(IStatus.ERROR, getPluginId(), IStatus.OK, message, e);\n		}\n		ResourcesPlugin.getPlugin().getLog().log(status);\n		Display display = SWTUtil.getStandardDisplay();\n		final IStatus fstatus = status;\n		display.asyncExec(new Runnable() {\n			public void run() {\n				ErrorDialog.openError(null, title, null, fstatus);\n			}\n		});\n	}',606,'AAAAA3///UA='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:22:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',607,'AAAAA3///S8='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:21:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Matthias.',607,'AAAAA3///TA='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:21:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',607,'AAAAA3///TE='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:17:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',608,'AAAAA3///TI='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:17:03','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks!',608,'AAAAA3///TM='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:16:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',608,'AAAAA3///TQ='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:13:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',609,'AAAAA3///Tc='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:13:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',609,'AAAAA3///TU='),(2,'2010-04-26 20:13:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Mathias.',609,'AAAAA3///TY='),(4,'2010-04-28 00:04:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',610,'AAAAA3///Lk='),(2,'2010-05-03 07:39:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',610,'AAALuX///1k='),(2,'2010-05-03 07:39:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',610,'AAALuX///1s='),(4,'2010-04-28 00:07:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',611,'AAAAA3///Lg='),(2,'2010-05-03 07:39:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',611,'AAALuX///1o='),(2,'2010-05-03 07:39:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',611,'AAALuX///1w='),(4,'2010-04-28 00:10:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',612,'AAAAA3///Lc='),(2,'2010-05-03 07:40:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',612,'AAALuX///1c='),(2,'2010-05-03 07:40:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',612,'AAALuX///1g='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:51:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',613,'AAAAA3///Pc='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:51:22','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks!',613,'AAAAA3///Pg='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:50:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',613,'AAAAA3///Pk='),(2,'2010-04-27 16:45:44','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nOne approach is to use a ILazyTreeContentProvider and SWT.VIRTUAL',614,'AAAAA3///NE='),(46,'2010-04-27 11:55:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI\'ll update this with a better solution',614,'AAAAA3///QE='),(63,'2010-04-27 10:10:45','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nI don\'t think it\'s of good form to use a PMD. If we want to go all out then we should be using a DeferredTreeContentManager.',614,'AAAAA3///Qg='),(46,'2010-06-21 12:10:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',614,'AAALwH///3k='),(2,'2010-06-21 13:28:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',614,'AAALwH///3M='),(2,'2010-06-21 13:28:52','Patch Set 2:\n\nLooks good.',614,'AAALwH///3Q='),(2,'2010-06-21 13:28:52','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',614,'AAALwH///3U='),(2,'2010-04-27 14:06:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',615,'AAAAA3///PE='),(2,'2010-04-27 14:06:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDone, thanks!',615,'AAAAA3///PI='),(2,'2010-04-27 14:06:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',615,'AAAAA3///PM='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:48:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',616,'AAAAA3///Po='),(2,'2010-04-27 13:48:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',616,'AAAAA3///Ps='),(2,'2010-04-27 14:13:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',617,'AAAAA3///O0='),(2,'2010-04-27 14:13:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is a simple change so I\'m just going to push it.',617,'AAAAA3///O4='),(1,'2010-04-27 14:37:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',618,'AAAAA3///OI='),(1,'2010-04-27 14:37:35','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',618,'AAAAA3///OM='),(1,'2010-04-27 14:28:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',618,'AAAAA3///OY='),(2,'2010-04-27 14:36:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',619,'AAAAA3///OQ='),(2,'2010-04-27 14:35:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSince this is a small change, I will just push it.',619,'AAAAA3///OU='),(1,'2010-04-28 00:21:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',620,'AAAAA3///LM='),(1,'2010-04-28 00:21:43','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',620,'AAAAA3///LQ='),(1,'2010-04-28 00:21:29','Uploaded patch set 3.',620,'AAAAA3///LU='),(4,'2010-04-28 00:18:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\ntest now passes on Windows',620,'AAAAA3///LY='),(1,'2010-04-27 18:05:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',620,'AAAAA3///M4='),(2,'2010-05-03 09:36:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',621,'AAALuX///00='),(2,'2010-05-03 09:36:23','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',621,'AAALuX///04='),(46,'2010-05-03 08:35:09','Uploaded patch set 4.',621,'AAALuX///1A='),(2,'2010-05-03 08:06:38','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nMathias, can you submit a new change?\n\nThere\'s a conflict now ;)',621,'AAALuX///1I='),(46,'2010-05-03 08:04:46','Uploaded patch set 3.',621,'AAALuX///1Q='),(4,'2010-04-30 21:45:57','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nHEAD is now redundantly shown twice in the repository view, once immediately before the branches node and another time under symbolic references.\n\nPlease do proper error handling right from the beginning, printStackTrace() is a hack.',621,'AAALuX///5Y='),(46,'2010-04-29 17:16:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',621,'AAALuX///7w='),(46,'2010-04-29 06:34:46','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\n>for HEAD you give the full ref:\n>refs/remotes/origin/master\n>for other remote branches you leave out the refs/remotes\n>e.g. origin/stable-0.7\n>this looks inconsistent to me\n\nOne of the first requirements was to show the \"shortened\" name for branches, e.g. instead of refs/heads/master just master in order to imprvoe readability of the tree. This confused people because there could be refs/heasds/abc and refs/remotes/abc (and perhaps also a refs/tags/abc) which would result in three nodes with the same text. Thus separation by the remote/local/tag nodes. However, in case of showing the reference HEAD points to, we need to use the full name to avoid ambiguities.\n\n>maybe the remote HEAD could be also marked with the little\n>check mark like for local branches ?\n\nWhat is the remote HEAD?',621,'AAALuX///80='),(4,'2010-04-29 12:14:34','Patch Set 1:\n\nremote HEAD:\nsearch for set-hard in http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-remote.html\n\nAccording to that section a remote HEAD specifies the default branch for the named remote. If you leave out the branch in a remote ref the default branch is assumed. E.g. \"if the default branch for origin is set to master, then origin may be specified wherever you would normally specify origin/master\"',621,'AAALuX///8c='),(4,'2010-04-29 12:15:17','Patch Set 1:\n\ntypo: search for set-head in the git-remote documentation.',621,'AAALuX///8Y='),(4,'2010-04-28 23:53:56','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\ntried this change, this looks much better organized :)\n\nfor HEAD you give the full ref:\n  refs/remotes/origin/master\nfor other remote branches you leave out the refs/remotes\n  e.g. origin/stable-0.7\nthis looks inconsistent to me\nmaybe the remote HEAD could be also marked with the little\ncheck mark like for local branches ?',621,'AAALuX///9A='),(4,'2010-04-30 15:08:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',622,'AAALuX///5k='),(4,'2010-04-30 15:08:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',622,'AAALuX///5o='),(44,'2010-04-30 14:41:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',622,'AAALuX///6M='),(4,'2010-04-28 23:41:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',622,'AAALuX///9E='),(8,'2010-05-02 09:59:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',623,'AAALuX///20='),(8,'2010-05-02 09:59:15','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',623,'AAALuX///24='),(8,'2010-05-02 09:58:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',623,'AAALuX///28='),(NULL,'2010-05-02 09:58:21','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.',623,'AAALuX///3A='),(8,'2010-05-02 09:58:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRemoved obsoleted strings',623,'AAALuX///3E='),(8,'2010-05-02 09:57:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',623,'AAALuX///3I='),(8,'2010-05-02 09:42:51','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nminor cleanups only',623,'AAALuX///3M='),(4,'2010-04-30 14:58:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',623,'AAALuX///6I='),(63,'2010-04-28 15:25:27','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nWhat do we gain from implementing IEGitOperation instead of IWorkspaceRunnable?',624,'AAALuX////A='),(44,'2010-04-28 15:32:49','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nIWorkspaceRunnable is no good interface for an operation. The user thinks he has to execute the operation using Workspace.run. But that is not right for all EGit operations.\nCurrently many operations are used by just calling op.run.\nThus I introduced a new interface with an execute method. Those operations that need a workspace runnable and a scheduling rule do the workspace runnable in their execute method (e.g. branch). It\'s an internal of an operation how it needs to execute.',624,'AAALuX///+8='),(44,'2010-04-28 16:23:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',624,'AAALuX///+c='),(2,'2010-04-28 16:35:28','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\nAny reason we don\'t use the commands/handlers/operations stuff from the Eclipse workbench? That is, IUndoableOperation/AbstractOperation?',624,'AAALuX///+Q='),(63,'2010-04-28 15:58:05','Patch Set 1:\n\nThanks Jens, that clears it up for me. Personally, I\'d just have it be named IGitOperation without the \'E\' bit but that might be just me.',624,'AAALuX///+w='),(63,'2010-04-29 11:50:49','Patch Set 2:\n\nI see the inlined comments now on the first patch now, Jens, thanks.\n\nI think I may have some other concerns about this whole locking thing but let\'s get this out of the way first before we do more polishing. :)',624,'AAALuX///8g='),(63,'2010-04-29 09:44:28','Patch Set 2:\n\nJens, when I expand the first patch set I only see \"1 comment\" next to BranchOperation. Do you see \"2 comments\"? Maybe there is a bug in Gerrit?',624,'AAALuX///8o='),(44,'2010-04-29 07:19:17','Patch Set 2:\n\nHi Chris,\n\nI do not expect there will be undo functionality for team operations in the near future. Thus I kept it simple and defined a minimal interface to get rid of the not fitting IWorkspaceRunnable.\n\nBest regards\n\nJens',624,'AAALuX///8s='),(44,'2010-04-29 07:16:27','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nHi Remy,\n\ndid you see my comment on your comment? It was:\n\nWe do not know which projects will be affected by the branch operation. It\'s e.g. possible that changes in a project are performed that resides in an EGit repo but the project is not shared with EGit. Thus I think it\'s safer to lock the complete WS.\n\nBest regards\n\nJens',624,'AAALuX///8w='),(63,'2010-04-28 16:50:05','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nJens, I noticed you didn\'t change the code in BranchOperation or respond to my original question. Was this an oversight?',624,'AAALuX///98='),(2,'2010-05-04 14:49:06','Patch Set 2:\n\nCan you resubmit a patch and I\'ll merge.\n\nAnd we will work from there :)',624,'AAALuX///y0='),(2,'2010-05-04 20:28:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',624,'AAALuX///yc='),(2,'2010-05-04 20:28:30','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',624,'AAALuX///yg='),(44,'2010-05-04 15:50:41','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nrebased the change',624,'AAALuX///ys='),(44,'2010-05-04 15:49:46','Uploaded patch set 3.',624,'AAALuX///yw='),(46,'2010-05-04 08:15:21','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',624,'AAALuX///zk='),(2,'2010-04-28 21:17:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',625,'AAALuX///9I='),(2,'2010-04-28 21:16:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1',625,'AAALuX///9M='),(46,'2010-04-29 06:23:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\n',626,'AAALuX///84='),(2,'2010-04-29 15:16:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',626,'AAALuX///8I='),(2,'2010-04-29 15:16:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks great.',626,'AAALuX///8M='),(46,'2010-04-29 06:19:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\nDuh... I had this lingering in the back of my head but forgot to check again. Sorry for this. Thanks for taking care of this.',627,'AAALuX///88='),(2,'2010-04-29 15:17:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',627,'AAALuX///8A='),(2,'2010-04-29 15:17:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Remy.',627,'AAALuX///8E='),(51,'2010-04-29 19:01:16','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nNew patch set for change Ifc4278078b298781d55cf5421e9647a21fa5db24 instead.',628,'AAALuX///7c='),(4,'2010-04-29 18:39:44','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nI guess you wanted to upload this to Change	Ifc4278078b298781d55cf5421e9647a21fa5db24 as a new patchset.\n\nIn order to do so amend this change and add the following change footer in the last paragraph of the commit message:\n\nChange-Id: Ifc4278078b298781d55cf5421e9647a21fa5db24\n\nand push it again to gerrit, this should then end up as new patchset on your previous change. Then abandon this one.',628,'AAALuX///7k='),(8,'2010-05-04 18:35:17','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',629,'AAALuX///yk='),(51,'2010-08-19 11:12:17','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',629,'AAALyH///eE='),(8,'2010-05-08 21:13:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',630,'AAALun///zk='),(8,'2010-05-08 21:12:57','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',630,'AAALun///zo='),(8,'2010-05-08 21:12:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',630,'AAALun///zs='),(51,'2010-04-30 13:18:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',630,'AAALuX///6U='),(4,'2010-04-30 12:51:27','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',630,'AAALuX///6Y='),(46,'2010-05-03 10:41:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',631,'AAALuX///0w='),(2,'2010-05-04 13:35:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',631,'AAALuX///zE='),(2,'2010-05-04 13:35:01','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks, done.',631,'AAALuX///zI='),(2,'2010-05-04 13:34:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',631,'AAALuX///zM='),(4,'2010-05-02 23:36:45','Patch Set 5: No score; No score\n\n',632,'AAALuX///10='),(8,'2010-05-02 10:01:12','Patch Set 5: No score; No score\n\nRemoved unnecessary changes in GitTestCase',632,'AAALuX///2s='),(8,'2010-05-01 17:53:47','Uploaded patch set 4.',632,'AAALuX///30='),(63,'2010-05-01 12:08:09','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nThere needs to be a license header for BlobStorageTest.',632,'AAALuX///34='),(8,'2010-05-02 08:51:58','Uploaded patch set 5.',632,'AAALuX///3g='),(8,'2010-05-01 11:46:39','Patch Set 3: No score; IP review completed\n\nNote. This version has two dependencies. I7e4c14f44183a5fcb37c1562e81682bddeba80ad is needed or the test will hang.',632,'AAALuX///4A='),(8,'2010-05-01 11:15:13','Uploaded patch set 3.',632,'AAALuX///4E='),(8,'2010-05-01 10:55:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',632,'AAALuX///4I='),(8,'2010-05-01 10:55:23','Patch Set 1:\n\nThanks for actually reading the code.',632,'AAALuX///4M='),(44,'2010-04-30 15:02:41','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',632,'AAALuX///5s='),(4,'2010-04-30 12:27:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\n',632,'AAALuX///6g='),(8,'2010-04-29 22:18:42','Patch Set 1: No score; IP review completed\n\n',632,'AAALuX///7Y='),(2,'2010-05-04 13:55:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',632,'AAALuX///y4='),(2,'2010-05-04 13:55:05','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThat\'s fine.\n\nIn the future, we need to refactor things to be org.eclipse.egit.internal.*\n\ninstead of org.eclipse.egit.core.internal*... internal is in the wrong place ;)',632,'AAALuX///y8='),(2,'2010-05-04 13:53:49','Uploaded patch set 6.',632,'AAALuX///zA='),(4,'2010-05-08 17:40:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',633,'AAALun///1s='),(8,'2010-05-08 19:53:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',633,'AAALun///1U='),(8,'2010-05-08 19:53:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',633,'AAALun///1Y='),(2,'2010-05-02 07:26:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',634,'AAALuX///3k='),(2,'2010-05-02 07:26:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Remy.',634,'AAALuX///3o='),(8,'2010-05-01 10:02:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',634,'AAALuX///4Q='),(2,'2010-05-03 07:40:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',635,'AAALuX///1U='),(2,'2010-05-03 07:40:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',635,'AAALuX///1Y='),(4,'2010-05-01 20:58:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',635,'AAALuX///3s='),(4,'2010-05-02 22:12:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',636,'AAALuX///18='),(4,'2010-05-02 22:12:50','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nverified with 3.4,3.5,3.6 maven builds and 3.6 IDE test run',636,'AAALuX///2A='),(8,'2010-05-02 10:01:25','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nRemoved unnecessary changes in GitTestCase',636,'AAALuX///2o='),(8,'2010-05-02 08:51:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',636,'AAALuX///3c='),(8,'2010-05-02 10:00:19','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nOriginal commit had no Change-Id',637,'AAALuX///2w='),(2,'2010-05-02 15:09:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',638,'AAALuX///2g='),(2,'2010-05-02 15:09:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood catch.',638,'AAALuX///2k='),(2,'2010-05-04 13:17:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWorks for me.\n\nThanks Remy!',639,'AAALuX///zc='),(2,'2010-05-04 13:17:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',639,'AAALuX///zY='),(2,'2010-05-04 13:25:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',640,'AAALuX///zQ='),(2,'2010-05-04 13:25:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is fine, although not sure how common it will be.',640,'AAALuX///zU='),(2,'2010-05-05 07:23:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',641,'AAALun////o='),(2,'2010-05-05 07:23:34','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, made some minor changes around the text.\n\nI prefer \"Delete\" vs. \"Delete Branch...\"',641,'AAALun////s='),(2,'2010-05-05 07:23:09','Uploaded patch set 4.',641,'AAALun////w='),(46,'2010-05-04 23:11:31','Uploaded patch set 3.',641,'AAALuX///xM='),(4,'2010-05-04 22:00:28','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nplease rebase and resolve conflicts',641,'AAALuX///xw='),(46,'2010-05-04 23:03:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',641,'AAALuX///xY='),(2,'2010-05-05 07:14:46','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nI like the direction this is going.\n\nI recommend that on the first wizard page, \"Clone a repository\" and \"Add local repository\" become buttons and are moved to the right side of the list of git repositories. At the moment, they are simply located below the list of repositories which isn\'t optimal imho.',642,'AAALun////8='),(46,'2010-05-05 09:53:08','Uploaded patch set 4.',642,'AAALun////c='),(4,'2010-05-05 12:25:51','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nplease rebase',642,'AAALun///+g='),(46,'2010-05-05 12:58:05','Uploaded patch set 5.',642,'AAALun///+Y='),(NULL,'2010-05-06 08:31:26','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.',642,'AAALun///8c='),(2,'2010-05-06 08:31:22','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is great work with Mathias.\n\nI found one issue with the UI and it\'s that the wizard opens with an error message. This is against the Eclipse UI guidelines and we should avoid this. I opened bug 311834 for us to fix this issue. Otherwise, we should push this now :)',642,'AAALun///8g='),(46,'2010-05-06 07:55:42','Uploaded patch set 6.',642,'AAALun///8o='),(2,'2010-05-06 08:32:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',642,'AAALun///8Q='),(2,'2010-05-06 08:32:47','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',642,'AAALun///8U='),(2,'2010-05-06 08:32:33','Uploaded patch set 7.',642,'AAALun///8Y='),(4,'2010-05-05 13:58:36','Patch Set 5: No score; No score\n\nIf I try to import the parent folder of an already imported project as a general project (which of course isn\'t possible) I get an error in the error log and a nasty error popup. Instead I would prefer to be notified in advance that this will not work.',642,'AAALun///9M='),(46,'2010-05-05 13:00:41','Patch Set 5: No score; No score\n\n',642,'AAALun///9s='),(46,'2010-05-04 23:10:03','Uploaded patch set 3.',642,'AAALuX///xQ='),(46,'2010-05-04 23:07:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',642,'AAALuX///xU='),(1,'2010-05-04 23:31:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',643,'AAALuX///xA='),(1,'2010-05-04 23:31:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',643,'AAALuX///xE='),(31,'2010-05-04 23:28:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',643,'AAALuX///xI='),(2,'2010-05-05 07:15:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',644,'AAALun////0='),(2,'2010-05-05 07:15:46','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, works for me.',644,'AAALun////4='),(4,'2010-05-05 00:19:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',644,'AAALuX///w4='),(4,'2010-05-05 00:18:06','Uploaded patch set 2.',644,'AAALuX///w8='),(2,'2010-05-05 09:07:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',645,'AAALun////g='),(2,'2010-05-05 09:07:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWe may need to have a special delete dialog that gives you some options on how to delete the branch. We can open a bug for this.',645,'AAALun////k='),(4,'2010-05-05 13:13:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',646,'AAALun///9c='),(4,'2010-05-05 13:12:53','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nAdded description from bugzilla to commit message',646,'AAALun///9g='),(4,'2010-05-05 13:11:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',646,'AAALun///9k='),(4,'2010-05-06 13:21:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',647,'AAALun///7Q='),(4,'2010-05-06 13:21:19','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',647,'AAALun///7U='),(46,'2010-05-06 09:21:09','Uploaded patch set 3.',647,'AAALun///7w='),(2,'2010-05-06 09:06:42','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\nCan you fix the merge conflicts?',647,'AAALun///8E='),(46,'2010-05-06 08:21:02','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\n>Would it make sense to also make this work if the \n>immediate parent folder of the repo is pasted ?\n\nI would be reluctant to add any \"magic\" here.\n\n>Would drag&drop from the filesystem also be possible ?\n\nYes.\n\n>Maybe even looking for repos recursively would make sense ?\n\nAgain, I think too much magic is not helpful. The recursive search is implemented in the \"Add Repositroy\" dialog (and you can paste the path to the text field there).',647,'AAALun///8k='),(46,'2010-05-06 08:37:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',647,'AAALun///8M='),(4,'2010-05-05 13:52:47','Patch Set 1:\n\nMaybe even looking for repos recursively would make sense ?',647,'AAALun///9U='),(4,'2010-05-05 13:49:48','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nWould it make sense to also make this work if the immediate parent folder of the repo is pasted ?\n\nWould drag&drop from the filesystem also be possible ?\n\nThe change needs to be rebased. Maybe you should switch to do patch series instead of several overlapping changes, this may reduce the need for frequent rebase and conflict resolution cycles since patch series are always released according to the order of the series. If the changes are posted independently the submit order depends on which changes pass review faster.',647,'AAALun///9Y='),(4,'2010-05-05 13:09:39','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nmissed to add appropriate change id',648,'AAALun///9o='),(2,'2010-05-06 09:08:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',649,'AAALun///78='),(2,'2010-05-06 09:08:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis seems fine. I don\'t think we can avoid not locking the full workspace at the moment.',649,'AAALun///8A='),(2,'2010-05-07 05:53:31','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, Approved by the PMC.\n\nThanks.',650,'AAALun///5c='),(2,'2010-05-07 05:53:11','Uploaded patch set 3.',650,'AAALun///5g='),(2,'2010-05-07 05:53:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',650,'AAALun///5Y='),(44,'2010-05-06 15:30:53','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nHi Remy, added proper rule and improved error handling / progress reporting.',650,'AAALun///60='),(44,'2010-05-06 15:28:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',650,'AAALun///64='),(4,'2010-05-06 23:52:16','Patch Set 2:\n\nmissed the link:\n[1] www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf',650,'AAALun///6A='),(4,'2010-05-06 22:50:54','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\nThis change is > 250 lines. \nAccording to figure 2 of the Eclipse legal poster [1] we need a PMC member to approve this contribution, Jens is employed by SAP which is a member company having signed the member committer agreement. Chris, Gunnar could you IP approve this change ?',650,'AAALun///6I='),(63,'2010-05-06 21:12:57','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nThis looks better, thanks.',650,'AAALun///6U='),(63,'2010-05-05 17:08:27','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nThanks for splitting this up, Jens! :) The progress monitoring should be corrected and I\'m curious to hear your thoughts on the resource locking.',650,'AAALun///8w='),(46,'2010-05-06 08:37:36','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBotched the change id',651,'AAALun///8I='),(4,'2010-05-06 13:00:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',652,'AAALun///7c='),(4,'2010-05-06 13:00:34','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nremoved trailing whitespace and fixed typo in commit message',652,'AAALun///7g='),(4,'2010-05-06 12:59:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',652,'AAALun///7k='),(4,'2010-05-06 12:58:41','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nmissed to add change id',653,'AAALun///7o='),(4,'2010-05-06 13:28:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',654,'AAALun///7I='),(4,'2010-05-06 13:28:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',654,'AAALun///7M='),(63,'2010-05-06 15:14:56','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nWe seem to be missing a Gerrit Change-Id entry here.',655,'AAALun///68='),(46,'2010-05-06 15:36:04','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBotched Change-ID',655,'AAALun///6w='),(46,'2010-05-06 16:12:50','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nDump it.',656,'AAALun///6k='),(2,'2010-05-06 16:12:09','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nAbandon this change then?',656,'AAALun///6o='),(46,'2010-05-06 15:41:56','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nHold it, wrong commit uploaded',656,'AAALun///6s='),(46,'2010-05-07 06:38:56','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAlready merged as per Chris\' comment',657,'AAALun///48='),(NULL,'2010-05-07 00:31:36','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.',657,'AAALun///54='),(2,'2010-05-07 00:31:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWorks for me.',657,'AAALun///58='),(2,'2010-05-07 05:51:08','Patch Set 1:\n\nCan you drop this? I merged in Ide6da8e3.\n\nSigh, sleepy with jetlag makes make stupid.',657,'AAALun///5k='),(4,'2010-05-06 19:31:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',658,'AAALun///6c='),(4,'2010-05-06 19:31:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',658,'AAALun///6g='),(2,'2010-05-07 05:48:39','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',659,'AAALun///5w='),(2,'2010-05-07 05:50:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',660,'AAALun///5o='),(2,'2010-05-07 05:50:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDone.',660,'AAALun///5s='),(2,'2010-05-07 06:14:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',661,'AAALun///5M='),(2,'2010-05-07 06:14:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is a small change.\n\nThis makes the repositories view toolbar more consistent with how the CVS one is.',661,'AAALun///5Q='),(4,'2010-05-08 23:27:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',662,'AAALun///x0='),(4,'2010-05-08 23:27:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nfixed some style nits and rebased to master',662,'AAALun///x4='),(4,'2010-05-08 23:27:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',662,'AAALun///x8='),(2,'2010-05-07 07:20:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',663,'AAALun///4g='),(2,'2010-05-07 07:20:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nPerfect, thanks.',663,'AAALun///4k='),(6,'2010-05-07 15:21:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',664,'AAALun///28='),(6,'2010-05-07 15:21:13','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',664,'AAALun///3A='),(63,'2010-05-07 12:54:38','Patch Set 2:\n\nI would say yes. Locks can be relaxed when people start complaining. ;)',664,'AAALun///3c='),(44,'2010-05-07 12:27:12','Patch Set 2:\n\nHi Remy, my question is more general: should an operation / Job that reads resources a,b,c and changes a non resource x (here: GixIndex) lock a,b,c to ensure proper execution?',664,'AAALun///3g='),(63,'2010-05-07 14:58:26','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nLooks good to me, Jens. Thanks!',664,'AAALun///3I='),(44,'2010-05-07 14:45:53','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nAdded rule for Track.',664,'AAALun///3M='),(63,'2010-05-07 12:15:08','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nI don\'t have the code in front of me but I believe TrackOperation calls accept(*) on IContainers, right? So I think we should lock the resources in question or else that\'s just going to throw a CoreException.',664,'AAALun///3o='),(44,'2010-05-07 14:44:05','Uploaded patch set 3.',664,'AAALun///3Q='),(44,'2010-05-07 11:47:39','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nProvided rule in ResetAction.\nRemy, what do you think about the rule for TrackOperation?\nTrackOperation does not write resources. It reads resources and adds them to the Git index. If we do not lock the files an other thread might e.g. delete the files and the TrackOperation would fail. So should we lock the files when performing TrackOperation?',664,'AAALun///4M='),(44,'2010-05-07 11:41:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',664,'AAALun///4Q='),(63,'2010-05-07 10:05:05','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nPlease add scheduling rules to the jobs.',664,'AAALun///4Y='),(8,'2010-05-08 14:58:36','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nThree changes, should be three commits',665,'AAALun///18='),(46,'2010-05-07 18:02:59','Uploaded patch set 3.',665,'AAALun///2g='),(63,'2010-05-07 22:45:21','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nI used to be able to reset to the remote origin/master. The button is now disabled when I select the branch. Is this intentional?',665,'AAALun///2Y='),(46,'2010-05-07 12:23:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',665,'AAALun///3k='),(2,'2010-05-12 06:49:17','Patch Set 5:\n\nFYI, another thing we can consider doing is created a \"block\" class that contains the tree for the branches so we duplicate less code...',665,'AAALun///p4='),(2,'2010-05-12 06:46:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',665,'AAALun///p8='),(4,'2010-05-11 19:38:07','Patch Set 4:\n\non command line remote tracking branches are created with\n- $ git remote add <name> <url>   [1]\n- $ git branch --track <branch> <remote-branch> [2]\n  create a tracking branch. Will push/pull changes to/from another repository.\n  Example: git branch --track experimental origin/experimental\n- when branch.autosetupmerge=true git branch and git checkout will create remote tracking branches when the source for the operation is a branch in a remote repository\n\nHence to me it looks like the \"create new branch\" in this dialog should always create a local branch. Depending on \nconfiguration a remote tracking branch should be implicitly created.\n\n[1] http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-remote.html\n[2] [1] http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-branch.html',665,'AAALun///q4='),(2,'2010-05-12 06:46:23','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis an improvement :)\n\nThe dialog still needs some more work. In the future, we should probably consider using a FilteredTree to make it easier to filter for items in the tree.',665,'AAALun///qA='),(46,'2010-05-12 06:39:36','Patch Set 5: No score; No score\n\nI got the feeling that this is spinning out of control, so I reverted to master and re-applied only the changes needed to replace the tree and fix the \"New Branch\" issue.\nFortunately enough, in conjunction with change 680, check-out of remote branches is working now.',665,'AAALun///qE='),(46,'2010-05-12 06:33:46','Uploaded patch set 5.',665,'AAALun///qI='),(46,'2010-05-11 15:56:25','Patch Set 4:\n\nOk, good point... Can we always assume that we want to create a local branch or do we have to let the user decide whether a local or a remote branch schould be created?',665,'AAALun///rE='),(4,'2010-05-11 14:59:22','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\ncreating a local branch starting from a remote branch isn\'t possible anymore:\n\n- Team > Branch...\n- select branch origin/master\n- click new branch and enter mynewmaster\n-> this creates the branch refs/remotes/mynewmaster\n\nwith the old implementation I get instead branch\nrefs/heads/mynewmaster',665,'AAALun///rY='),(4,'2010-05-10 09:14:25','Patch Set 4: No score; No score\n\nWhere are these 3 changes this one has been split into ? It looks like the 3 changes are still squashed into this change, also the commit message still lists all 3.',665,'AAALun///ug='),(46,'2010-05-10 06:54:02','Patch Set 4: No score; No score\n\nSplit into three changse as suggeted; the \"Reset\"-button is alwo working again on remote branches.',665,'AAALun///uk='),(46,'2010-05-10 06:52:41','Uploaded patch set 4.',665,'AAALun///uo='),(4,'2010-05-08 23:29:11','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nyeah this should be split into 3 commits',665,'AAALun///xw='),(46,'2010-05-07 16:15:35','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nPut on hold in order to wait for a solution for checking out tags and remote branches.',666,'AAALun///24='),(46,'2010-05-11 08:13:36','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nNew one available',666,'AAALun///tA='),(4,'2010-05-08 20:09:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',667,'AAALun///0s='),(4,'2010-05-08 20:13:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- added printing stacktrace for problem analysis as suggested by Robin\n- fixed typos in commit message',667,'AAALun///0Y='),(8,'2010-05-07 16:46:16','Patch Set 1:\n\nNo Change-Id',667,'AAALun///2o='),(8,'2010-05-07 16:45:44','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',667,'AAALun///2s='),(8,'2010-05-08 21:16:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',667,'AAALun///zc='),(8,'2010-05-08 21:16:21','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',667,'AAALun///zg='),(8,'2010-05-07 17:15:31','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nPlease refer to the JGit change using its Change-Id.',668,'AAALun///2k='),(2,'2010-05-09 16:17:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',668,'AAALun///wI='),(2,'2010-05-09 16:17:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',668,'AAALun///wM='),(4,'2010-05-08 22:35:29','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\n',668,'AAALun///y4='),(4,'2010-05-08 22:36:32','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- compare enum using == operator\n- refer to jgit change via changeid',668,'AAALun///ys='),(4,'2010-05-08 22:35:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',668,'AAALun///yw='),(2,'2010-05-09 16:16:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',669,'AAALun///wQ='),(2,'2010-05-09 16:16:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood catch, thanks Remy.',669,'AAALun///wU='),(2,'2010-05-10 13:51:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',670,'AAALun///uM='),(2,'2010-05-10 13:51:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',670,'AAALun///uQ='),(4,'2010-05-10 16:55:35','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nWhat does this patch change for the decoration ? I couldn\'t see any difference in the RepositoryView\'s label decorations.\nCould you add a sentence to the commit message why this change is needed ? From your commit message I expected to see full refnames for branches but I still get shortened refnames :\ne.g. master instead of refs/heads/master',671,'AAALun///t0='),(2,'2010-05-10 18:56:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',671,'AAALun///tk='),(2,'2010-05-10 18:56:04','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine to me.',671,'AAALun///to='),(46,'2010-05-10 17:21:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',671,'AAALun///tw='),(63,'2010-05-10 16:52:43','Patch Set 1:\n\nScheduling rules makes me happy.',672,'AAALun///t4='),(2,'2010-05-10 16:35:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',672,'AAALun///uA='),(2,'2010-05-10 16:35:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',672,'AAALun///uE='),(46,'2010-05-10 17:22:07','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBotched',673,'AAALun///ts='),(2,'2010-05-11 03:15:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',674,'AAALun///tE='),(4,'2010-05-10 19:53:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',674,'AAALun///tg='),(2,'2010-05-11 03:15:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWorks for me.',674,'AAALun///tI='),(4,'2010-05-11 15:10:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',675,'AAALun///rQ='),(4,'2010-05-11 15:10:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',675,'AAALun///rU='),(2,'2010-05-11 14:45:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',676,'AAALun///rs='),(2,'2010-05-11 14:45:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',676,'AAALun///rw='),(46,'2010-05-11 09:38:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',676,'AAALun///s8='),(4,'2010-05-12 20:04:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',677,'AAALun///n8='),(4,'2010-05-12 20:04:08','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',677,'AAALun///oA='),(4,'2010-05-12 20:03:40','Uploaded patch set 3.',677,'AAALun///oE='),(4,'2010-05-12 20:02:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',677,'AAALun///oI='),(2,'2010-05-11 14:55:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',678,'AAALun///rk='),(2,'2010-05-11 14:55:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',678,'AAALun///ro='),(4,'2010-05-11 12:50:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',678,'AAALun///sw='),(2,'2010-05-11 14:55:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',679,'AAALun///rc='),(2,'2010-05-11 14:55:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks. Merging.',679,'AAALun///rg='),(4,'2010-05-11 13:13:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThis change depends on jgit change I0ccd7763eede117cb68240fdd25f13d6e6f6a2c1',679,'AAALun///so='),(4,'2010-05-11 13:12:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',679,'AAALun///ss='),(2,'2010-05-11 18:29:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',680,'AAALun///q8='),(2,'2010-05-11 18:29:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDone.',680,'AAALun///rA='),(32,'2010-05-11 14:24:45','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nShould not be in 2 commits',681,'AAALun///sE='),(32,'2010-05-11 14:24:13','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nShould not be in 2 commits',682,'AAALun///sI='),(2,'2010-06-16 01:59:45','Uploaded patch set 8.',683,'AAALu3///b0='),(32,'2010-05-13 20:29:11','Uploaded patch set 3.',683,'AAALun///j0='),(32,'2010-05-13 21:13:39','Patch Set 5:\n\nI made the recommended changes, please let me know if anything else needs fixing :)',683,'AAALun///jI='),(32,'2010-05-13 21:13:24','Uploaded patch set 7.',683,'AAALun///jM='),(32,'2010-05-13 20:53:50','Patch Set 4:\n\n(Sorry for the triple commit) \n\nI\'ve extended the test coverage as required.\n\nIf the tests are failing, it is probably because they are unable to create a .git/info/exclude file. I used a hack to generate the file on the fly because I can\'t commit excludeTest/.git/info/exclude to the repository. It\'s also useful for other testing. \n\nThe current patch should correctly delete any extra files/folders created for testing purposes.\n\nPlease let me know if there is anything else I need to change :)',683,'AAALun///jo='),(32,'2010-05-13 21:12:23','Uploaded patch set 6.',683,'AAALun///jQ='),(32,'2010-05-13 20:51:58','Uploaded patch set 5.',683,'AAALun///js='),(63,'2010-05-13 21:05:44','Patch Set 5: No score\n\nI admit I did not even try to merge this code to my own repository.',683,'AAALun///jU='),(32,'2010-05-13 20:45:17','Uploaded patch set 4.',683,'AAALun///jw='),(4,'2010-05-12 23:16:00','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\ngood work ! but still some way to go\n\nThis change needs a CQ hence marked unclean IP\n\nthe test IgnoreCacheTest.testExclude fails\njunit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<3> but was:<0>\n	at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:280)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:64)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:198)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:204)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.ignore.IgnoreCacheTest.testExclude(IgnoreCacheTest.java:149)\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 junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:164)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:130)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:120)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:230)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:225)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:130)\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.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197)\n\nthe test IgnoreCacheTest.testPriorities fails\njunit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Excludes file was not initialized\n	at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertNotNull(Assert.java:217)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.ignore.IgnoreCacheTest.testPriorities(IgnoreCacheTest.java:180)\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 junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:164)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:130)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:120)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:230)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:225)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:130)\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.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197)\n\nTest coverage could be improved:\n- IgnoreRule: get methods\n- IgnoreNode: parse methods, isIgnored, wasMatched\n- SimpleIgnoreCache: fullyInitialize, readIgnoreRules,\n     addIgnoreNode when (ignoreMap.get(directory) != null)\n     getParent when return value isn\'t empty string',683,'AAALun///kc='),(32,'2010-05-11 14:38:50','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nFirst patch set is the changes only, second patch set includes some test cases.',683,'AAALun///r4='),(32,'2010-05-11 14:38:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',683,'AAALun///r8='),(4,'2010-06-16 23:01:32','Patch Set 9: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(7 inline comments)\n\n- fixed style nits\n\nsome tests are failing:\n\n\njunit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<1> but was:<0>\n	at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:280)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:64)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:198)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:204)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.ignore.IgnoreCacheTest.testInitialization(IgnoreCacheTest.java:100)\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 junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:164)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:130)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:120)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:230)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:225)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:130)\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.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197)\n\n\njunit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<3> but was:<0>\n	at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:280)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:64)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:198)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:204)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.ignore.IgnoreCacheTest.testRules(IgnoreCacheTest.java:137)\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 junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:164)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:130)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:120)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:230)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:225)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:130)\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.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197)\n\n\njunit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Excludes file was not initialized\n	at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertNotNull(Assert.java:217)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.ignore.IgnoreCacheTest.testPriorities(IgnoreCacheTest.java:215)\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 junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:164)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:130)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:120)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:230)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:225)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:130)\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.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197)',683,'AAALvn////U='),(4,'2010-06-16 22:42:42','Uploaded patch set 9.',683,'AAALvX///9o='),(32,'2010-06-18 15:43:29','Uploaded patch set 10.',683,'AAALwH///+c='),(32,'2010-06-18 15:58:34','Patch Set 11:\n\nI made some of the suggested changes, added to the JavaDoc comments. Test coverage is at 98% of ignore classes. I am unable to reproduce test errors on a fresh clone on my machine, it may be related to the way the tests handled file paths, made some fixes in this patch.\n\nNow looking at using TreeWalk and WorkingTreeIterator, looking at NameConflictTreeWalk as a way to get started.\n\nThanks for the comments and suggestions. :)',683,'AAALwH///+Q='),(32,'2010-06-18 15:48:49','Uploaded patch set 11.',683,'AAALwH///+U='),(4,'2010-06-21 22:08:44','Patch Set 11: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI hit some test errors on Windows XP :\n\njava.lang.StringIndexOutOfBoundsException: String index out of range: 1\n	at java.lang.String.charAt(String.java:686)\n	at java.util.regex.Matcher.appendReplacement(Matcher.java:703)\n	at java.util.regex.Matcher.replaceAll(Matcher.java:813)\n	at java.lang.String.replaceAll(String.java:2189)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.ignore.IgnoreCacheTest.testInitialization(IgnoreCacheTest.java:88)\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 junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:164)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:130)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:120)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:230)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:225)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:130)\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.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197)\n\n\njava.lang.StringIndexOutOfBoundsException: String index out of range: 1\n	at java.lang.String.charAt(String.java:686)\n	at java.util.regex.Matcher.appendReplacement(Matcher.java:703)\n	at java.util.regex.Matcher.replaceAll(Matcher.java:813)\n	at java.lang.String.replaceAll(String.java:2189)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.ignore.IgnoreCacheTest.createExcludeFile(IgnoreCacheTest.java:341)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.ignore.IgnoreCacheTest.testRules(IgnoreCacheTest.java:129)\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 junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:164)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:130)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:120)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:230)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:225)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:130)\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.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197)\n\n\njava.lang.StringIndexOutOfBoundsException: String index out of range: 1\n	at java.lang.String.charAt(String.java:686)\n	at java.util.regex.Matcher.appendReplacement(Matcher.java:703)\n	at java.util.regex.Matcher.replaceAll(Matcher.java:813)\n	at java.lang.String.replaceAll(String.java:2189)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.ignore.IgnoreCacheTest.createExcludeFile(IgnoreCacheTest.java:341)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.ignore.IgnoreCacheTest.testPriorities(IgnoreCacheTest.java:228)\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 junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:164)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:130)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:120)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:230)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:225)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:130)\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.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197)',683,'AAALwH///2Q='),(32,'2010-06-28 18:05:15','Uploaded patch set 14.',683,'AAALwX///0E='),(32,'2010-06-24 21:24:59','Uploaded patch set 13.',683,'AAALwX///5o='),(32,'2010-06-23 20:48:17','Patch Set 12:\n\nI made the requested changes to use TreeWalk and a TreeIterator. The SimpleIgnoreCache implementation now uses a TreeWalk to populate nodes for the cache. Checks the timestamp on the .gitignore to avoid unnecessary updates. Code coverage hasn\'t changed, but there are still more test cases to add to cover more cases (e.g. bad times to delete a .gitignore file).\n\nI have a Windows XP box set up for EGit now and will try to get the tests fixed for Windows tonight, I need to fix a number of clumsy String manipulation attempts for compatibility with Windows path strings.',683,'AAALwX///94='),(32,'2010-06-23 20:42:44','Uploaded patch set 12.',683,'AAALwX///98='),(6,'2010-07-07 14:12:04','Uploaded patch set 17.',683,'AAALwX///E0='),(2,'2010-07-07 15:06:10','Patch Set 17: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nWaiting for CQ clearance and we can check this in. Hopefully it will only take a few days.',683,'AAALwX///Eg='),(6,'2010-07-07 14:26:47','Patch Set 17: No score\n\n',683,'AAALwX///Es='),(6,'2010-07-07 14:16:12','Patch Set 17: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI fixed the line ending problem.',683,'AAALwX///Ew='),(32,'2010-07-02 19:50:15','Uploaded patch set 15.',683,'AAALwX///fE='),(2,'2010-07-05 18:20:43','Uploaded patch set 16.',683,'AAALwX///S0='),(32,'2010-07-05 18:29:07','Patch Set 16:\n\nThanks Chris! I will run a set of tests tonight on Windows to make sure the tests run properly there as well.',683,'AAALwX///Sw='),(32,'2010-07-05 14:21:01','Patch Set 15:\n\nThanks for the comments.\n\nI made the recommended changes to the test and fixed up the Manifest, I\'m not sure why the Manifest keeps getting changed.\n\nI have some test documentation on my Eclipse talk page here:\nhttp://wiki.eclipse.org/User_talk:Charley.wang.gmail.com#EGIt.2FJGit_ignore_testing',683,'AAALwX///Ts='),(6,'2010-06-30 13:56:04','Patch Set 14: (3 inline comments)\n\nGood and important work!\n\nYou should change the commit message. It should describe the whole change. Comments meant for review should go into the gerrit comments. Otherwise it is difficult for a new reviewer to understand the whole change.\nI would find it useful to have the description of compatibility tests here (as in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=303925#c5).\n\nDo you plan to add core.excludesfile? Regarding that I would however suggest to do that in a subsequent commit.\n\nPlease have a look at my inline comments.',683,'AAALwX///tw='),(32,'2010-07-12 21:21:35','Uploaded patch set 18.',683,'AAALwX//+0k='),(4,'2010-07-12 21:19:28','Patch Set 17: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nWhy all these pure whitespace differences in the last three classes ? Please fix that.',683,'AAALwX//+0o='),(32,'2010-07-12 21:46:59','Patch Set 19:\n\nRemoved the whitespace as requested.',683,'AAALwX//+z4='),(32,'2010-07-12 21:45:03','Uploaded patch set 19.',683,'AAALwX//+z8='),(4,'2010-07-12 22:47:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',683,'AAALwX//+zc='),(4,'2010-07-12 22:46:39','Patch Set 20: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- CQ 4302 has been approved\n- Charley changed copyright headers as discussed in CQ 4302\n- fixed some style nits (redundant braces around single line blocks and some extra blank lines)\n\nthanks Charley this is an important step for jgit',683,'AAALwX//+zg='),(4,'2010-07-12 22:37:33','Uploaded patch set 20.',683,'AAALwX//+zk='),(4,'2010-05-11 19:57:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nmissed that in change I0ccd7763eede117cb68240fdd25f13d6e6f6a2c1\n\nNever trust a local build if you didn\'t delete the local m2 repository.',684,'AAALun///q0='),(4,'2010-05-11 19:57:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',684,'AAALun///qw='),(4,'2010-05-11 23:59:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',685,'AAALun///qQ='),(4,'2010-05-11 23:59:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks, good catch.',685,'AAALun///qU='),(6,'2010-05-18 08:50:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',686,'AAALun///dE='),(6,'2010-05-18 08:50:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',686,'AAALun///dI='),(63,'2010-05-17 10:13:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',686,'AAALun///f0='),(63,'2010-05-17 10:15:37','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nI misinterpreted the code. I think we need to warn the user here. If we cannot read the index, that is a pretty fatal operation and they need to know about it. Giving them a compare editor with blank content is not a good idea as it may give them the impression that their index is corrupted and that their staged changes have been lost.',686,'AAALun///fs='),(6,'2010-05-17 09:12:27','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nConcerning the IOException: Would you think that in this case we should not bother the user with a dialog? Then we should maybe also change the CompareWithHeadAction. But I think that we should at least log it to the error log.\n\n> One problem is that the editor\'s title is just \"Compare X Current and Current\" when doing this. \n\nI haven\'t even noticed that, we should however fix it with another patch.',686,'AAALun///gA='),(63,'2010-05-12 10:11:15','Patch Set 1:\n\nThe \"ignoring\" of IOExceptions might also be a little iffy. CompareWithHeadAction throws it back up as an InvocationTargetException. That can be arranged if desired.',686,'AAALun///pc='),(63,'2010-05-12 01:39:08','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nOne problem is that the editor\'s title is just \"Compare X Current and Current\" when doing this. Haven\'t quite figured out the best way to correct this problem but am open to suggestions.\n\nSee GitCompareFileRevisionEditorInput\'s getTitle() method.',686,'AAALun///qM='),(4,'2010-05-12 09:48:19','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',687,'AAALun///pk='),(2,'2010-05-12 12:08:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',687,'AAALun///pQ='),(2,'2010-05-12 12:08:28','Patch Set 1:\n\nLooks good.',687,'AAALun///pU='),(2,'2010-05-12 12:08:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',687,'AAALun///pY='),(44,'2010-05-12 13:09:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',688,'AAALun///o0='),(63,'2010-05-12 13:04:58','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nYour other changes look fine to me, Jens.',688,'AAALun///o4='),(44,'2010-05-12 12:44:16','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nHi Remy, did not see your review before pushing patch set 2. Can you have a look on the additional text changes?',688,'AAALun///o8='),(4,'2010-05-12 13:36:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',688,'AAALun///ok='),(4,'2010-05-12 13:36:28','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to master, thanks this improves usability',688,'AAALun///oo='),(4,'2010-05-12 13:35:21','Uploaded patch set 4.',688,'AAALun///os='),(44,'2010-05-12 13:10:40','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nfirst -> First',688,'AAALun///ow='),(44,'2010-05-12 12:27:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',688,'AAALun///pA='),(63,'2010-05-12 12:16:19','Patch Set 1: No score\n\n',688,'AAALun///pE='),(1,'2010-05-12 22:54:09','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nThere really isn\'t a problem with this change, we can include it.  But it seems odd that we need to update our implementation of this interface without also changing the version of Jetty we reference in our build and our manifests.  \n\nDid Jetty make an incompatible API change in a service release?',689,'AAALun///k0='),(66,'2010-05-13 15:13:05','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nI get the compile errors when using Eclipse 3.6M7 Helios - the RCP distribution. I then added Jetty from the Eclipse RT project. In 3.6M7, Jetty is at 7.1 but in M6 it was at 7.02 and did not have the new Logger interface. The problem we face is that any potential contributor who has a fully up to date Helios environment will encounter this problem when they build under Eclipse. The Maven builds will not be affected because you reference specific versions in them.',689,'AAALun///kU='),(4,'2010-05-12 14:07:21','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\n- looks like an incompatible change in the jetty Logger interface\n- which version of jetty are you using here ? \n- currently we build against jetty 7.0.1.\n- which helios package or feature includes org.eclipse.jetty.util.log ? I use PDE and there is no such problem so far',689,'AAALun///og='),(1,'2010-07-17 00:07:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',689,'AAALw3////g='),(1,'2010-07-17 00:07:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',689,'AAALw3////k='),(4,'2010-07-17 00:05:39','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n- rebased to current master\n- verified that this works with Jetty 7.1.5\n- improved commit message',689,'AAALw3////o='),(4,'2010-07-17 00:01:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',689,'AAALw3////s='),(2,'2010-05-12 17:27:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',690,'AAALun///oQ='),(2,'2010-05-12 17:26:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',690,'AAALun///oU='),(4,'2010-05-12 16:33:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',691,'AAALun///oc='),(4,'2010-05-12 16:33:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',691,'AAALun///oY='),(4,'2010-05-12 19:57:18','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nmissed to add changeid',692,'AAALun///oM='),(8,'2010-05-14 05:38:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',693,'AAALun///iA='),(8,'2010-05-14 05:38:05','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',693,'AAALun///iE='),(8,'2010-05-14 05:37:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',693,'AAALun///iI='),(8,'2010-05-14 05:36:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\nYes, that is annoying. I guess we couldn\'t make our minds up. For the time being this change is ok. \n\nThis variant works well with the fact that clients construct collection and a collections make a smooth interface, while arrays seems to be more \"eclipse\"-style.',693,'AAALun///iM='),(63,'2010-05-13 02:40:04','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nThe other option is to just make them take IResource[] as the parameter. It doesn\'t really matter to me what happens but at the moment, there are constructors that takes collections and constructors that takes arrays. This inconsistency is very annoying.',693,'AAALun///kY='),(1,'2010-05-13 17:02:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',694,'AAALun///kM='),(1,'2010-05-13 17:02:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',694,'AAALun///kQ='),(1,'2010-05-13 17:02:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',695,'AAALun///kE='),(1,'2010-05-13 17:02:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',695,'AAALun///kI='),(1,'2010-05-13 17:29:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',696,'AAALun///j8='),(1,'2010-05-13 17:29:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',696,'AAALun///kA='),(1,'2010-05-13 20:21:32','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWe don\'t hand-generate merges for individual patch sets.  It pollutes the history and doesn\'t provide a lot of detail.',697,'AAALun///j4='),(2,'2010-05-17 03:17:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',698,'AAALun///gU='),(2,'2010-05-17 03:17:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',698,'AAALun///gY='),(6,'2010-05-17 09:24:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',699,'AAALun///f4='),(6,'2010-05-17 09:24:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nOne thing we might think about is the handling of untracked files. When I select the checkbox \"Show untracked files\" the untracked entries belonging to the user selection are not checked. But I suspect that that can get complicated...',699,'AAALun///f8='),(63,'2010-05-17 10:33:47','Patch Set 2:\n\nI think if an untracked file is selected, then that option should be checked and then it can just be preselected like any other file. Unchecking and checking it back on won\'t select it again but I think the behaviour of ticking the checkbox if something is untracked seems like something the user would want.',699,'AAALun///fo='),(63,'2010-05-14 00:01:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',699,'AAALun///i0='),(6,'2010-05-14 12:01:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',700,'AAALun///h0='),(6,'2010-05-14 12:01:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGreat, thanks!',700,'AAALun///h4='),(8,'2010-05-16 08:12:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',701,'AAALun///hA='),(8,'2010-05-16 08:12:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',701,'AAALun///hE='),(46,'2010-05-18 09:16:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',702,'AAALun///c0='),(46,'2010-05-18 09:15:49','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\nPerfect.',702,'AAALun///c4='),(6,'2010-05-18 08:45:18','Patch Set 3: No score; IP review completed\n\nNow I create a simple project instead of a Java project, this improves the memory consumption and the speed of the test.',702,'AAALun///dM='),(6,'2010-05-18 08:43:17','Uploaded patch set 3.',702,'AAALun///dQ='),(46,'2010-05-17 15:43:16','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nThe tests work when run individually, (also closing the Welcome page), but if I run the suite, I get out of memory (heap space). This is reproducible. Before changing the VM settings, could we try to check if we hold resources unneccessarily?\nAlso still some whitespace problems.',702,'AAALun///ew='),(6,'2010-05-17 14:18:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',702,'AAALun///fQ='),(46,'2010-05-17 08:39:23','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nThis doesn\'t work when run in the outer test suite due to a problem with\n\nbot.viewByTitle(\"Welcome\").close();\n\nbeing called in the @BeforeClass method.',702,'AAALun///gQ='),(2,'2010-05-17 03:15:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',703,'AAALun///gc='),(2,'2010-05-17 03:15:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Remy.\n\nThere\'s a part of me that pines for us to use Databinding and WizardPageSupport...',703,'AAALun///gg='),(1,'2010-05-17 14:09:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',704,'AAALun///fU='),(8,'2010-05-16 08:32:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',704,'AAALun///g4='),(1,'2010-05-17 14:09:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',705,'AAALun///fY='),(8,'2010-05-16 08:49:01','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',705,'AAALun///g0='),(8,'2010-05-16 08:50:35','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\n',705,'AAALun///gs='),(1,'2010-05-15 23:35:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',705,'AAALun///hQ='),(1,'2010-05-17 14:09:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',706,'AAALun///fc='),(8,'2010-05-16 08:50:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',706,'AAALun///gw='),(1,'2010-05-16 00:08:39','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAccidentally pushed a partial change that doesn\'t even compile.',707,'AAALun///hM='),(1,'2010-05-16 00:09:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',708,'AAALun///hI='),(1,'2010-05-19 18:44:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',708,'AAALun///Rg='),(1,'2010-05-19 18:44:42','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',708,'AAALun///Rk='),(1,'2010-05-19 18:44:09','Uploaded patch set 3.',708,'AAALun///Ro='),(4,'2010-05-19 12:19:01','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',708,'AAALun///UI='),(1,'2010-05-17 14:09:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',709,'AAALun///fg='),(8,'2010-05-16 08:57:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',709,'AAALun///go='),(1,'2010-05-17 14:09:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',710,'AAALun///fk='),(8,'2010-05-16 09:00:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',710,'AAALun///gk='),(1,'2010-05-18 01:13:38','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nThis is an early draft of this change.  I\'ve since refactored it further in my local workspace.  I\'ll push an updated revision probably tomorrow.',711,'AAALun///dY='),(1,'2010-05-27 15:44:54','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAs much as I like the idea of this code, I\'m taking it back for now because its not leading to a successful resolution of bug 308945.',711,'AAALun//+/s='),(1,'2010-05-17 14:19:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',712,'AAALun///fE='),(1,'2010-05-17 14:19:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',712,'AAALun///fI='),(1,'2010-05-17 14:19:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',712,'AAALun///fM='),(8,'2010-05-16 08:13:43','Patch Set 1: No score; IP review completed\n\n',712,'AAALun///g8='),(2,'2010-05-17 17:22:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',713,'AAALun///eI='),(2,'2010-05-17 17:22:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine to me.\n\nI think we should dispose of the MenuItem\'s though when we don\'t need them... or we leak resources.',713,'AAALun///eM='),(63,'2010-05-18 09:49:32','Patch Set 2:\n\nNo, I meant just attaching RepositoryListeners to the repository instances and wait for them to be fired. There\'s no need to schedule another detection job when that\'s what the RCS job is doing.',714,'AAALun///cc='),(63,'2010-05-18 10:03:16','Patch Set 2:\n\nYes, you\'re right, that occurred to me in hindsight but I forgot to mention it in my last comment. This is unfortunate but I guess there isn\'t much we can do about it. At least, not for the immediate future anyway it seems.',714,'AAALun///cU='),(46,'2010-05-18 09:53:08','Patch Set 2:\n\nWell, that would be true if the Repository instances were shared between RCS and Repositories view, but that\'s not the case (you can have a Repository in the view without having a shared project in the workspace)... I believe it wouldn\'t work on the instances used by the View without having the scan triggered somehow, am I right?',714,'AAALun///cY='),(46,'2010-05-18 05:52:32','Patch Set 2:\n\nHm... Do you mean some sort of auto-refresh? Registring a Repository Change listener for all displayed Repositories and having (yet another) background job scheduled every 10 seconds (or so) that triggers a scan on all Repositories being displayed?',714,'AAALun///dU='),(63,'2010-05-17 15:40:10','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nOne thing to note is that this code will only work if a checkout was performed using the BranchAction. This will not fly if the user were to checkout another branch from the command line.\n\nThough technically speaking, that is a general problem (see bug 313046).',714,'AAALun///e8='),(63,'2010-05-17 20:55:01','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nWould it make sense to use a RepositoryListener to react to changes instead of having the BranchAction force a refresh?',714,'AAALun///eA='),(46,'2010-05-17 16:20:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',714,'AAALun///ec='),(46,'2010-05-17 16:23:25','Patch Set 2:\n\nHaving this not integrated with the command line is a good point, but as pointed out by Remy himself, this is a general problem.',714,'AAALun///eQ='),(46,'2010-05-17 16:21:41','Patch Set 2: No score\n\n',714,'AAALun///eU='),(4,'2010-05-18 21:49:59','Uploaded patch set 4.',714,'AAALun///Xc='),(4,'2010-05-18 22:07:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',714,'AAALun///XQ='),(4,'2010-05-18 22:07:49','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- verified',714,'AAALun///XU='),(2,'2010-05-18 18:12:03','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebase changes and we should be good for a merge.',714,'AAALun///Y0='),(NULL,'2010-05-18 18:11:45','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.',714,'AAALun///Y4='),(2,'2010-05-18 18:11:42','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI\'m ok with this hack for now :)',714,'AAALun///Y8='),(46,'2010-05-18 17:00:01','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nThe new patch set takes the \"auto-refresh\" approach.',714,'AAALun///ZI='),(46,'2010-05-18 16:59:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',714,'AAALun///ZM='),(4,'2010-05-19 09:49:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',715,'AAALun///Ug='),(4,'2010-05-19 09:48:56','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is much easier to use for the straightforward use cases, thanks.\n\n- rebased to current master\n- added missing license headers\n- fixed some style nits and corrected commit message',715,'AAALun///Uk='),(4,'2010-05-19 09:47:33','Uploaded patch set 3.',715,'AAALun///Uo='),(4,'2010-05-19 09:44:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',715,'AAALun///Uw='),(44,'2010-06-02 15:32:22','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nGood idea!\n\nBut I would prefer to show the staged files in tables. E.g. one table for modified/staged files and a second for untracked files. The repository could be chosen with a drop down on top of the view.',716,'AAALu3///9Y='),(2,'2010-05-26 15:23:36','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nNow that Remy is a committer, we can now bypass the IP process. If folks wanted this in for 0.8.0, there\'s a bit of time left to do some polish.',716,'AAALun///Ak='),(63,'2010-05-18 12:03:50','Patch Set 1:\n\nFor the record, the unstaging feature request is covered by bug 309362.',716,'AAALun///b0='),(49,'2010-05-18 09:03:49','Patch Set 1:\n\ns/with/with out/ ;)',716,'AAALun///c8='),(63,'2010-05-18 10:46:33','Patch Set 1:\n\nWell, for the unstaging feature, I\'ll likely submit the change set to Gerrit separately and wait until that gets merged before I integrate that code into this code base (adding the extra DND hook).\n\nAs to the \'Synchronize\' view, as I mentioned on bug 309582, I do not feel that the \'Synchronize\' view is the right place to expose the staging area but if you all think so that\'s fine by me. Sadly, it seems only Stefan has been chiming in on the discussions. :/\n\nAt any rate, I\'m not the one that\'s using Git on a regular basis, I use CVS at work. :) I just want to compare files easily in a view without having to bring up the commit dialog and then double-clicking on those entries individually. ;) I don\'t really mind where this feature comes from as long as it\'s accessible from a view.\n\nAs an aside, we are really late in the endgame already here in my opinion. Since this change is pretty big, I don\'t see this feature going into 0.8 so there should be plenty of time to bounce ideas around.',716,'AAALun///cE='),(63,'2010-05-18 09:45:58','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'m guessing you meant a mixed reset to correct the index? In EGit this seems to be an all or nothing operation though whereas you can send in paths for C Git.',716,'AAALun///cg='),(49,'2010-05-18 10:28:22','Patch Set 1:\n\nIMHO this change with unstaging files should be included in this patch set ...\n\nAnother thing that I\'m not really happy of is that we are getting next view (we have already \'Git Repositories\', in nearest feature we would have \'Syncrhonize view\'). It seams that if user want to use Git integration in Eclipse he should have opened two or tree additional tabs. This could be quite anoing.\n\nI\'m wondering if we can merge both view (I mean this one and \'Synchronization\') ...',716,'AAALun///cI='),(63,'2010-05-18 10:16:08','Patch Set 1:\n\nAgreed. Right now the view pretty much exposes nothing more than what you already see [in EGit]. Besides the fact that removed files show up, it does not provide any additional actions at all since everything you see in the context menu is the same as if you right-clicked on a file or a project in another view. :)\n\nA separate change set should be created for allowing the resetting of individual files and then this view will get it for free in the context menu...though some extra code will be needed for the DND case. ;)',716,'AAALun///cM='),(49,'2010-05-18 09:31:46','Patch Set 1:\n\nIFAIK yes, we can call \'Reset to..\' -> \'HEAD\' in CGit this we can done by \'git reset HEAD /path/\'.',716,'AAALun///co='),(49,'2010-05-18 10:09:42','Patch Set 1:\n\nIn deed it looks that in [EJ]Git we can\'t done reset for a single file, but only for a project. This should be changed IMHO.\nI didn\'t look on EGit \'reset to\' implementation but maybe we can extract some part form it and implement \'reset to\' for a single file in \'Stage\' view.',716,'AAALun///cQ='),(63,'2010-05-18 09:28:32','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhoops. Forgot to mention that that\'s not implemented. Can you do that in regular EGit? I don\'t think so.',716,'AAALun///cw='),(49,'2010-05-18 09:01:53','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nI play a little with this feature and first thing that I\'ve notice was that, I can\'t unstage file after it is staged. I\'ve try to drag it into \'Modified\' section but it won\'t even move.\n\nIMHO there should be also buttons for staging and unstaging so that we user can use \'Staging\' with drag and drop action.',716,'AAALun///dA='),(63,'2010-05-18 00:01:42','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nDragging projects/folders to the other nodes won\'t work. I was trying to implement this at one point but the logic was getting kind of crazy...or I was approaching the problem incorrectly. Anyway, that\'s definitely something that needs to be implemented at some point.',716,'AAALun///dc='),(63,'2010-05-20 22:33:29','Patch Set 3:\n\nGunnar, I got the image from Team\'s plug-in or the CVS plug-in.\n\nStefan, you\'re right, we don\'t have an action yet for that. That seems like another action we\'d have to implement. Though at the moment, it\'s not possible to commit only staged changes...so I guess we need an action for that too. ;) I thought the modified/staged entry would have modifiers but maybe my memory is off. I\'ll have to try it later. The \'Compare With...\' is just contributed from the EGit code. Everything from the context menu is standard stuff from Eclipse or EGit. We\'d have to correct them individually.\n\nRobin, it should be only listing \"dirty\" files. Could you rephrase your comment? The view is pretty much the same as a view of your workspace, except that it\'s filtered for dirty and staged files. Showing files outside the Eclipse workspace I guess would be doable. That\'s also a problem the synchronization feature would need to consider now that I think about it.',716,'AAALun///Kw='),(8,'2010-05-20 20:19:29','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nDouble-clicking the Staged icon the first time gave me an error much little information, but the error log have this\n\nCaused by: java.util.ConcurrentModificationException\nat java.util.HashMap$HashIterator.nextEntry(HashMap.java:793)\nat java.util.HashMap$KeyIterator.next(HashMap.java:828)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.staging.StagingView.getNodeChildren(StagingView.java:525)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.staging.StagingView.access$4(StagingView.java:516)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.staging.StagingView$2.getChildren(StagingView.java:200)\nat org.eclipse.jface.viewers.AbstractTreeViewer.getRawChildren(AbstractTreeViewer.java:1352)',716,'AAALun///Lc='),(8,'2010-05-20 20:21:19','Patch Set 3:\n\nSince the view seems to cover the whole repo I would expect files outside the projects to be shown too.',716,'AAALun///LU='),(8,'2010-05-20 20:20:16','Patch Set 3:\n\nListing all files under \"modified\" makes this view not much different from the project view. If would be quite useful if only modified files were listed. Ideally with the option of a flat listing, but that\'s extra can be bolted on later.',716,'AAALun///LY='),(6,'2010-05-20 14:59:41','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nThe handling of files that are both staged and dirty has issues:\n\n- The entry in \"Modified\" has no decorator in this case.\n- double clicking on the entry in \"Staged\" opens a compare view which compares the content of the working tree file with the HEAD, I would expect a comparison of the staged content with the head, however, there is no action for this yet.\n- \"Compare With -> ...\" does not the right thing on a staged entry (if it is also dirty), it should compare the staged content with the head\n\nAn alphabetic ordering of the repositories would be nice.\n\nI think that it is not a problem that unstaging is not yet possible. The view is useful nevertheless.',716,'AAALun///Nc='),(17,'2010-05-20 14:33:51','Patch Set 3:\n\nAlright, just got clarification. You\'ll need a CQ. The legal poster talks about Bugzilla and all source in Bugzilla. I think it\'s ok to have it in Gerrit. The code (patch + all files) need to be attached to a CQ anyway.\n\nRemy, I assume you got the image from an existing Eclipse project?',716,'AAALun///Ng='),(17,'2010-05-20 07:54:35','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nHonestly, I\'m not sure a CQ is necessary. Figure 1 makes a distinction between \"Submitting Committer\" and \"Committer on same Project\". To me Remy is a \"Submitting Committer\" because he already *is* an Eclipse committer. He is not a committer on EGit/JGit but he is an Eclipse committer. \n\nI\'ll get a confirmation on my interpretation and get back to you.',716,'AAALun///O4='),(4,'2010-05-19 08:44:20','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nfigure 2 in http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf\nsays:\n\nWritten 100% by employees\nof the same employer as the\nSubmitting Committer: (a)\nunder the supervision of the\nPMC; and (b) where the\nemployer has signed a\nMember Committer\nAgreement.\n\nI think the first condition is not met in your case since none of the EGit committers is employed by IBM (yet;-)',716,'AAALun///VE='),(63,'2010-05-19 00:25:37','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nNever mind, looks like that can only be bypassed if I worked for, say, Google or SAP. ;)',716,'AAALun///WA='),(63,'2010-05-19 00:16:14','Patch Set 1:\n\nMatthias, I work for IBM, a member company, is a CQ still required? I thought I saw some SAP code slip by after Chris/Gunnar gave the PMC approval? :O\n\nAs for the \"derived\" problem, my IResourceVisitor _is_ checking via Team.isIgnoredHint(IResource) so I\'m not quite sure what\'s going on here. I\'ll have to investigate some more with some breakpoints.\n\nAnyway, I can see why it might take a while if it\'s doing a full walk but I\'m surprised to hear that the \'Send to Background\' button was disabled. Do you remember what the progress monitor was saying?',716,'AAALun///WE='),(4,'2010-05-19 00:15:08','Uploaded patch set 3.',716,'AAALun///WI='),(4,'2010-05-19 00:14:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',716,'AAALun///WM='),(4,'2010-05-18 23:58:34','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nthis is great stuff !\n\n- the analysis should respect ignored resources (same as in package explorer, when Charley\'s implementation is ready we can replace it with proper gitignore handling), currently it\'s also analysing e.g. derived files under bin folder which takes quite a while for large repositories\n- when I opened the staging view the first time a progress dialog came up having no \"send to background\" button. Since I had some really large repositories open it took a long time to get this dialog finished.\n\nCQ for this change (to be prepared when review is passed) : https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4125\n\nPlease add the following tags to the commit message for this change:\nCQ: 4125\nBug: 313263',716,'AAALun///WQ='),(4,'2011-05-15 00:19:21','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nwas further improved in change: I7d78aff4db32d864ac0410a178bad149c45b6440 and this was merged into master recently',716,'AABOI3///nQ='),(79,'2011-05-14 11:04:14','Patch Set 3:\n\nThis can be abandoned now that I7d78aff4db32d864ac0410a178bad149c45b6440 is in, right?',716,'AABOI3///u0='),(214,'2011-05-14 13:05:54','Patch Set 3:\n\nYes.',716,'AABOI3///uk='),(NULL,'2010-05-18 15:03:48','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.',717,'AAALun///Z4='),(4,'2010-05-18 15:03:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',717,'AAALun///Z8='),(4,'2010-05-18 15:09:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',717,'AAALun///Zo='),(4,'2010-05-18 15:09:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',717,'AAALun///Zs='),(4,'2010-05-18 15:09:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',717,'AAALun///Zw='),(4,'2010-05-18 14:44:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',718,'AAALun///aA='),(4,'2010-05-18 14:43:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',718,'AAALun///aE='),(63,'2010-05-18 14:42:02','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nThe commit message has no Gerrit Change-Id at the bottom.',719,'AAALun///aI='),(4,'2010-05-18 14:29:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',719,'AAALun///aM='),(2,'2010-05-20 15:21:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',719,'AAALun///NU='),(2,'2010-05-20 15:21:17','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is fine.\n\nI\'m not happy having our Activator get really busy here with holding the singleton instance of RepositoryUtil but for now, this is OK.',719,'AAALun///NY='),(63,'2010-05-18 23:34:57','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nRight, you can certainly get by without it but when I\'ve submitted patches without it I\'ve been told to correct it. :)',719,'AAALun///Wc='),(4,'2010-05-18 23:12:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nchanged-id is only needed if you have more than one patchset ;-) in order to tell gerrit that this is not going to be a new independent change',719,'AAALun///Wk='),(46,'2010-05-18 17:29:02','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nUpdated the commit message.',719,'AAALun///ZA='),(46,'2010-05-18 17:28:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',719,'AAALun///ZE='),(4,'2010-05-18 15:08:23','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nmissed to add changeid',720,'AAALun///Z0='),(1,'2010-05-21 00:00:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',721,'AAALun///J4='),(1,'2010-05-20 23:58:53','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',721,'AAALun///KE='),(5,'2010-05-20 23:53:10','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nworked on all of the comments',721,'AAALun///KM='),(5,'2010-05-20 23:50:04','Uploaded patch set 4.',721,'AAALun///KQ='),(8,'2010-05-20 17:52:47','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\n',721,'AAALun///Lw='),(1,'2010-05-20 16:50:33','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',721,'AAALun///Ms='),(5,'2010-05-20 15:44:01','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master and externalized strings',721,'AAALun///NI='),(5,'2010-05-20 14:27:35','Uploaded patch set 3.',721,'AAALun///Nk='),(1,'2010-05-20 01:26:32','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',721,'AAALun///Pw='),(5,'2010-05-19 08:11:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',721,'AAALun///Vg='),(4,'2010-05-19 08:39:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\n',721,'AAALun///VI='),(5,'2010-05-19 08:14:52','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nfixed two typos and Renamed an exception class',721,'AAALun///VM='),(5,'2010-05-19 08:13:45','Patch Set 1:\n\nI will incorporate the suggestions from Matthias',721,'AAALun///VQ='),(4,'2010-05-18 22:44:34','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\n',721,'AAALun///W0='),(5,'2010-05-18 16:50:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',721,'AAALun///ZQ='),(4,'2010-05-19 08:54:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',722,'AAALun///U8='),(4,'2010-05-19 08:54:22','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',722,'AAALun///VA='),(46,'2010-05-19 05:40:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',722,'AAALun///Vk='),(2,'2010-05-24 14:53:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',723,'AAALun///Gg='),(2,'2010-05-24 14:53:13','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebasing and merging to master.',723,'AAALun///Gk='),(2,'2010-05-24 14:52:55','Uploaded patch set 6.',723,'AAALun///Go='),(NULL,'2010-05-24 14:51:05','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.',723,'AAALun///Gs='),(2,'2010-05-24 14:51:02','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI\'m happy with the state of this.\n\nIf there are further problems, let\'s iterate instead of delaying further on getting this in.',723,'AAALun///Gw='),(5,'2010-05-21 15:25:38','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',723,'AAALun///JA='),(5,'2010-05-21 14:41:09','Patch Set 4:\n\nworked on the comments',723,'AAALun///JE='),(5,'2010-05-21 14:41:01','Uploaded patch set 5.',723,'AAALun///JI='),(1,'2010-05-20 17:37:21','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',723,'AAALun///ME='),(5,'2010-05-20 15:42:54','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nrebased this change to current master and externalized strings',723,'AAALun///NM='),(2,'2010-05-20 14:15:05','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nLooks good for me and 0.8.0',723,'AAALun///No='),(5,'2010-05-20 15:41:52','Uploaded patch set 4.',723,'AAALun///NQ='),(5,'2010-05-20 07:30:38','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',723,'AAALun///O8='),(6,'2010-05-20 13:13:29','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nFixed merge with refs poiting to a tag.',723,'AAALun///OE='),(6,'2010-05-20 13:12:15','Uploaded patch set 3.',723,'AAALun///OI='),(5,'2010-05-20 10:28:01','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nStefan and I implemented the comments of Shawn.\n\nWe know that we have to rebase this changeset and that this will force us to externalize strings. We\'ll work on that now while waiting for your comments.',723,'AAALun///Os='),(5,'2010-05-20 10:24:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',723,'AAALun///Ow='),(1,'2010-05-20 01:39:35','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',723,'AAALun///Pc='),(2,'2010-05-20 01:44:17','Patch Set 1: No score; IP review completed\n\nLooks OK if Shawn\'s comments are addressed.',723,'AAALun///PU='),(2,'2010-05-24 13:47:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',724,'AAALun///G8='),(2,'2010-05-24 13:47:45','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDone. Thanks Stefan!',724,'AAALun///HA='),(2,'2010-05-24 13:47:18','Uploaded patch set 3.',724,'AAALun///HE='),(NULL,'2010-05-24 13:43:06','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.',724,'AAALun///HI='),(2,'2010-05-24 13:43:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Stefan!',724,'AAALun///HM='),(6,'2010-05-20 13:38:10','Patch Set 2: No score; IP review completed\n\nRebased, added an icon and changed position and label in the context menu. I added a note to the dialog that only fast-forward is currently possible.\n\nUsing MessageDialog should be done in a subsequent commit.',724,'AAALun///Ns='),(6,'2010-05-20 13:34:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',724,'AAALun///Nw='),(2,'2010-05-19 18:46:40','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\nLooks great. You will probably have to rebase due to Iab813336f66328f5a3b7b2e3dbfffc1e79c1d094\n\nI would simply call this new entry \"Merge...\" for now and make a note as it only supports fast forwarding at the moment in the dialog. We should probably also use a MessageDialog instead of just a Dialog for the branch dialog... it looks very plain at the moment.',724,'AAALun///Rc='),(2,'2010-05-19 18:11:31','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nI\'m in love!',724,'AAALun///SA='),(6,'2010-05-19 16:27:41','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nThis change depends on I0db480f061e01b343570cf7da02cac13a0cbdf8f which adds a merge command to the jgit API.',724,'AAALun///SE='),(46,'2010-05-19 18:33:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nCool!',725,'AAALun///R8='),(2,'2010-05-19 18:43:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',725,'AAALun///Rs='),(2,'2010-05-19 18:43:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks, I\'ll take that as enough approval to get something initially in for 0.8.0... we can debate on the mailing list to change the order in the future, you know... like when you get the merge code in :)',725,'AAALun///Rw='),(2,'2010-05-19 18:50:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',726,'AAALun///RI='),(2,'2010-05-19 18:50:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks for the patch!',726,'AAALun///RM='),(2,'2010-05-19 18:50:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',726,'AAALun///RQ='),(4,'2010-05-20 12:02:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',727,'AAALun///Oc='),(4,'2010-05-20 12:02:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',727,'AAALun///Og='),(1,'2010-05-19 18:41:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',728,'AAALun///R0='),(1,'2010-05-19 18:41:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',728,'AAALun///R4='),(1,'2010-05-19 21:50:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',729,'AAALun///Qc='),(1,'2010-05-19 21:50:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',729,'AAALun///QY='),(4,'2010-05-20 12:01:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',730,'AAALun///Ok='),(4,'2010-05-20 12:01:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',730,'AAALun///Oo='),(2,'2010-05-21 00:55:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',731,'AAALun///Jk='),(2,'2010-05-21 00:55:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',731,'AAALun///Jo='),(2,'2010-05-20 21:36:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI\'m adding new icons for tracking / untracking so don\'t worry about those for now ;)',731,'AAALun///K4='),(2,'2010-05-21 00:59:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',732,'AAALun///Jc='),(2,'2010-05-21 00:59:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSmall change, going to just push it in.',732,'AAALun///Jg='),(4,'2010-05-22 21:46:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',733,'AAALun///H8='),(4,'2010-05-22 21:46:26','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',733,'AAALun///IA='),(4,'2010-05-22 21:45:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',733,'AAALun///IE='),(NULL,'2010-05-22 21:42:50','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.',733,'AAALun///II='),(4,'2010-05-22 21:42:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',733,'AAALun///IM='),(63,'2010-05-21 19:14:57','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nIf this gets merged, I guess we can can change I719ca671.',734,'AAALun///I0='),(6,'2010-05-21 19:45:19','Patch Set 1:\n\nSorry, Remy, I was not aware anymore of your patch proposal!\n\nThe solution looks similar, but I had not looked into your patch before (I know I should have done, I\'ll take more care of reviewing in future...)',734,'AAALun///Io='),(2,'2010-05-21 19:22:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',734,'AAALun///Is='),(2,'2010-05-21 19:22:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',734,'AAALun///Iw='),(4,'2010-05-21 16:19:00','Patch Set 2: No score\n\n- works from inside Eclipse 3.6 M7 on windows xp\n- still need to test with tycho, fighting (again) with broken downloaded artifacts',735,'AAALun///I4='),(4,'2010-05-21 16:12:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',735,'AAALun///I8='),(6,'2010-05-28 09:01:09','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\nTest fails on Vista, from eclipse 3.5.2 20100218-1602 and from maven.\n\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find widget.\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.waitUntilWidgetAppears(SWTBotFactory.java:348)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.shells(SWTBotFactory.java:112)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.shell(SWTBotFactory.java:102)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.shell(SWTBotFactory.java:93)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.WorkingCopyPage.waitForCreate(WorkingCopyPage.java:39)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.WorkingCopyPage.assertWorkingCopyExists(WorkingCopyPage.java:53)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest.clonedRepositoryShouldExistOnFileSystem(GitCloneWizardTest.java:247)\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: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.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:115)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:23)\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.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:619)\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 5000 ms.: Could not find shell matching: with text \'Cloning from git://localhost:62438/test.git\'\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.SWTBotFactory.waitUntilWidgetAppears(SWTBotFactory.java:346)\n	... 42 more',735,'AAALun//++I='),(8,'2010-05-29 10:21:32','Patch Set 2:\n\nSome ideas\n- Slow down the cloning with the same daya. I\'ve used AspectJ in another project where mocking would be too intrusive to test some legacy code. Introducing a few delays would be easy.\n- Create a test repo from EGit, by cloning ourself and fixing the branches. That would give us a large repo for testing. Remember we are not testing cloning itself, but only the GUI on top of clone, so we can presume that cloning as such is working.',735,'AAALun//+7w='),(4,'2010-05-28 12:58:12','Patch Set 2:\n\nRobin: do you think we should instead use the approach taken in SampleDataRepositoryTestCase and checkin the pack files for e.g. egit.git to have some more test data to give swtbot a chance to find the widgets',735,'AAALun//+9k='),(8,'2010-05-28 11:19:34','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\nSame failure and \n\ncanCloneARemoteRepo\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 10000 ms.: Could not find shell matching: with text \'Cloning from git://localhost:33562/test.git\'\n\n\nclonedRepositoryShouldExistOnFileSystem\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 10000 ms.: Could not find shell matching: with text \'Cloning from git://localhost:33562/test.git\'\n\nalteringSomeParametersDuringClone\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 10000 ms.: Could not find shell matching: with text \'Cloning from git://localhost:33562/test.git\'\n\nshareProjectWithNewlyCreatedRepo\naused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 10000 ms.: Could not find widget matching: (of type \'Table\')\n\nThe last one is probably not related to this patch, but the\nother probably are. Using a very small local repo means the clone operation is way fast for the test to detect the progress indicator.',735,'AAALun//+9o='),(4,'2010-07-16 22:43:45','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- removed System.out.println calls\n- rebased to current master\n- increased memory settings for maven run to values used to run tests in Eclipse\n- increased timeout to wait for branch table in clone wizard',735,'AAALw3////4='),(4,'2010-07-16 22:41:47','Uploaded patch set 5.',735,'AAALw3////8='),(46,'2010-07-19 07:36:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',735,'AAALw3////M='),(46,'2010-07-19 07:36:01','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGreat!',735,'AAALw3////Q='),(4,'2010-07-16 14:32:06','Uploaded patch set 3.',735,'AAALwn///+A='),(46,'2010-07-16 17:58:37','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nVery nice and quite a progress. However, we should not use System.out to write messages to the console: it disturbs the user and doesn\'t help anyone.',735,'AAALwn///6Y='),(4,'2010-07-16 14:34:45','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- generate additional 100 random commits to get some more food for cloning',735,'AAALwn///94='),(4,'2010-07-16 14:33:00','Uploaded patch set 4.',735,'AAALwn///98='),(2,'2010-05-24 00:11:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',736,'AAALun///Hc='),(2,'2010-05-24 00:11:34','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nAdded a resource manager.',736,'AAALun///Hg='),(2,'2010-05-24 00:11:02','Uploaded patch set 3.',736,'AAALun///Hk='),(2,'2010-05-24 00:06:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',736,'AAALun///Ho='),(49,'2010-05-22 18:56:31','Patch Set 1: No score\n\n',736,'AAALun///IQ='),(4,'2010-05-22 18:18:49','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',736,'AAALun///IY='),(63,'2010-05-25 15:34:43','Patch Set 1:\n\nIt was Robin actually. It wasn\'t me who spotted this. :)',737,'AAALun///DI='),(2,'2010-05-24 22:29:38','Patch Set 1:\n\nThanks Remy, I\'ll see what I can do about the 3.4 issues.\n\nSigh, I wish we just moved to 3.5...',737,'AAALun///Fg='),(2,'2010-05-24 02:18:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',737,'AAALun///HQ='),(2,'2010-05-24 02:06:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nA fairly straightforward change.\n\nPushing into master.',737,'AAALun///HU='),(2,'2010-05-24 13:59:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',738,'AAALun///G0='),(2,'2010-05-24 13:59:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple change :)',738,'AAALun///G4='),(2,'2010-05-24 15:10:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSmall change that needs to be pushed due to merge support.',739,'AAALun///Gc='),(2,'2010-05-24 15:10:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',739,'AAALun///GY='),(2,'2010-05-24 16:10:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',740,'AAALun///GQ='),(2,'2010-05-24 16:10:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSmall change, let\'s do it for 0.8.0',740,'AAALun///GU='),(2,'2010-05-24 16:50:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',741,'AAALun///GI='),(2,'2010-05-24 16:50:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple cleanup change for 0.8.0',741,'AAALun///GM='),(2,'2010-05-25 13:56:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',742,'AAALun///FE='),(2,'2010-05-25 13:56:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks for doing the little things Matthias.',742,'AAALun///FI='),(4,'2010-05-24 22:41:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',742,'AAALun///FU='),(46,'2010-05-26 06:29:20','Uploaded patch set 3.',743,'AAALun///B8='),(46,'2010-05-26 06:26:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',743,'AAALun///CA='),(4,'2010-05-25 14:46:40','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nyeah, direction looks good\n\nthe new classes have no license header',743,'AAALun///Dg='),(2,'2010-05-25 13:57:50','Patch Set 1: No score; IP review completed\n\nI agree, I like the direction this is going.\n\nHowever note, in the future, we want to use the org.eclipse.ui.menus extension point for everything when we support Eclipse 3.5-3.7 when we start shipping 0.9.0 :)',743,'AAALun///FA='),(6,'2010-05-31 16:12:00','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nlooks good',743,'AAALun//+60='),(6,'2010-05-31 16:12:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',743,'AAALun//+6w='),(46,'2010-05-31 06:48:26','Uploaded patch set 4.',743,'AAALun//+7I='),(2,'2010-05-25 13:55:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',744,'AAALun///FM='),(2,'2010-05-25 13:55:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. Thanks Stefan.',744,'AAALun///FQ='),(2,'2010-05-26 13:40:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',745,'AAALun///A8='),(2,'2010-05-26 13:40:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',745,'AAALun///BA='),(4,'2010-05-26 12:53:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nrebased',745,'AAALun///Bk='),(4,'2010-05-26 12:51:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',745,'AAALun///Bo='),(4,'2010-05-25 14:27:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',745,'AAALun///E0='),(4,'2010-05-26 13:37:15','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nSuccessfully built and installed it into helios, checked for broken links. \n\nI will update it again when we are done with 0.8 documentation.',746,'AAALun///BM='),(4,'2010-05-26 13:35:41','Uploaded patch set 4.',746,'AAALun///BQ='),(4,'2010-05-26 12:51:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',746,'AAALun///Bs='),(4,'2010-05-26 12:58:11','Uploaded patch set 3.',746,'AAALun///BU='),(4,'2010-05-25 16:29:54','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI will integrate the other wiki pages Chris mentioned and propose a new patch',746,'AAALun///DA='),(2,'2010-05-25 14:47:31','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nI believe this time around we should modify the wikitext task to include http://wiki.eclipse.org/EGit/Git_For_Eclipse_Users\n\nWhat do you think?',746,'AAALun///Dc='),(4,'2010-05-25 15:17:46','Patch Set 1:\n\nWith the change\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,745\nwe are fetching always the latest jars available on\nhttp://download.eclipse.org/tools/mylyn/update/weekly/e3.4\ncurrently we get there\norg.eclipse.mylyn.wikitext.core-1.3.0.I20100521-1600-e3x.jar\nand\norg.eclipse.mylyn.wikitext.mediawiki.core-1.3.0.I20100521-1600-e3x.jar\n\nIf we need newer jars I need the URL of the corresponding p2 repository.',746,'AAALun///DM='),(2,'2010-05-25 15:04:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThe version of wikitext that we were using previously was old so we need to make sure we pickup the latest one from Helios... it has the flexibility to grab entries from different wiki pages. I documented this process here:\n\nhttp://wiki.eclipse.org/DocumentationGuidelines/CrowdSourcingExample\n\nWe can greatly simplify the script with the new wikitext to. We have a bug to do this already :)\n\n306205: Update to the latest wikitext\nhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=306205\n\nWhich version of wikitext are you fetching with this change?',746,'AAALun///DQ='),(4,'2010-05-25 14:59:28','Patch Set 1:\n\nOk, I agree. \n\nDo you have any hints what needs to be tweaked in the ant script to get the second wiki page in ?',746,'AAALun///DU='),(4,'2010-05-25 14:39:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI will do another update when we finished the docu work for 0.8',746,'AAALun///Ew='),(6,'2010-05-28 09:07:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',746,'AAALun//++A='),(6,'2010-05-28 09:07:55','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',746,'AAALun//++E='),(4,'2010-05-28 08:53:12','Uploaded patch set 6.',746,'AAALun//++M='),(4,'2010-05-28 08:37:13','Uploaded patch set 5.',746,'AAALun//++Q='),(2,'2010-05-25 16:48:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',747,'AAALun///C4='),(2,'2010-05-25 16:48:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',747,'AAALun///C8='),(2,'2010-05-25 17:48:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSmall change.',748,'AAALun///C0='),(2,'2010-05-25 17:48:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',748,'AAALun///Cw='),(2,'2010-05-26 04:01:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',749,'AAALun///CE='),(2,'2010-05-26 04:01:23','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThat works for me. I can\'t wait to drop 3.4 :)',749,'AAALun///CI='),(8,'2010-05-25 22:50:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',749,'AAALun///CM='),(8,'2010-05-25 22:10:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',749,'AAALun///CQ='),(44,'2010-05-26 12:56:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',750,'AAALun///Bc='),(4,'2010-05-26 13:38:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',750,'AAALun///BE='),(4,'2010-05-26 13:38:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',750,'AAALun///BI='),(63,'2010-05-26 12:05:41','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',750,'AAALun///Bw='),(2,'2010-05-26 13:52:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. We may consider pruning the last two wiki pages as they are specific to Eclipse.org but for now, I think it\'s ok to leave them in.',751,'AAALun///A0='),(2,'2010-05-26 13:52:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',751,'AAALun///Aw='),(4,'2010-05-26 12:54:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',751,'AAALun///Bg='),(2,'2010-05-26 14:20:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',752,'AAALun///Ao='),(2,'2010-05-26 14:20:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems reasonable.',752,'AAALun///As='),(2,'2010-05-26 18:29:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',753,'AAALun///Ac='),(2,'2010-05-26 18:29:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is straightforward.\n\nThanks for doing this :)',753,'AAALun///Ag='),(11,'2010-06-08 08:26:36','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',754,'AAALu3///sk='),(1,'2010-06-05 01:56:45','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCleaned up Robin\'s issues and rebased onto master... but there are tests that are failing now.  These need to be resolved before we can submit the change:\n\n  testWindowsFile(org.eclipse.jgit.transport.URIishTest)\n  testWindowsFile2(org.eclipse.jgit.transport.URIishTest)',754,'AAALu3///wM='),(1,'2010-06-05 01:56:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',754,'AAALu3///wQ='),(8,'2010-05-26 23:04:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nAdd new tests to existing testcase instead of creating a new one.\nDon\'t add junit dependency to non-test-project\nRun all tests, not just the new ones and in particular the already existing tests that relate to the URIIsh class\nAdd a Change-Id',754,'AAALun///AY='),(1,'2010-10-12 19:01:40','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nI think this has been resolved by other changes made by Christian Halstrick.',754,'AAALy3//+2M='),(2,'2010-05-27 01:00:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',755,'AAALun///AQ='),(2,'2010-05-27 01:00:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple change, looks good.',755,'AAALun///AU='),(4,'2010-05-28 07:19:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',756,'AAALun//++c='),(4,'2010-05-28 07:18:53','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased, removed unnecessary whitespace\n\nthis problem is fixed but still the test doesn\'t run from maven',756,'AAALun//++g='),(4,'2010-05-28 07:17:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',756,'AAALun//++k='),(4,'2010-05-28 07:15:31','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\n',756,'AAALun//++s='),(6,'2010-05-27 11:07:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',757,'AAALun///AE='),(6,'2010-05-27 11:07:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',757,'AAALun///AI='),(46,'2010-05-27 11:06:06','Uploaded patch set 2.',757,'AAALun///AM='),(46,'2010-05-27 11:41:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nGreat idea. However, we should get rid of static methods. Instead, the cache class should be obtained from the plug-in activator and only have non-static methods and members.\nThe constructor should be hidden, for example by putting the\nclass into the org.eclipse.egit.ui package and making the\nconstructor package-private.',758,'AAALun///AA='),(46,'2010-05-27 14:15:53','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',758,'AAALun//+/0='),(44,'2010-05-27 13:41:58','Uploaded patch set 3.',758,'AAALun//+/4='),(44,'2010-05-27 13:20:06','Uploaded patch set 2.',758,'AAALun//+/8='),(4,'2010-05-27 16:25:57','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',758,'AAALun//+/g='),(46,'2010-05-27 19:58:54','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',758,'AAALun//+/M='),(44,'2010-05-27 16:31:21','Uploaded patch set 4.',758,'AAALun//+/Q='),(8,'2010-05-27 22:11:35','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',758,'AAALun//++0='),(46,'2010-05-27 21:38:11','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',758,'AAALun//++8='),(46,'2010-05-28 10:25:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',758,'AAALun//+90='),(1,'2010-05-27 21:30:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',759,'AAALun//+/A='),(1,'2010-05-27 21:30:19','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',759,'AAALun//+/E='),(4,'2010-05-27 21:17:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',759,'AAALun//+/I='),(1,'2010-05-27 15:42:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI think this fixes 308945, for now.  Its not the ideal solution, but the ideal solution is taking far too long for me to code.  I want to get the bug fixed before we release anything in the 0.8 series, and this seemed pretty simple as a workaround.',759,'AAALun//+/w='),(4,'2010-05-27 16:21:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nVerified that starting from empty local maven repo the help content download still works from maven build still works\nand that result can be installed on Helios without having wikitext installed.',760,'AAALun//+/o='),(46,'2010-05-27 16:29:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',760,'AAALun//+/U='),(46,'2010-05-27 16:29:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',760,'AAALun//+/Y='),(2,'2010-05-27 22:07:42','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nI believe we need 1.3+',761,'AAALun//++4='),(8,'2010-05-28 06:34:48','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nHmm, Does the project have to be a Java project? I guess\nthe PDE build does nothing here, so we need only a placeholder, i.e. generic project and the only way to build this project is through maven?',761,'AAALun//++w='),(4,'2010-05-28 07:23:56','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nWe need 1.3+ in order to be able to make use of the nice improvements which simplified our ant script considerably. This version is available here\nhttp://download.eclipse.org/tools/mylyn/update/weekly/e3.4\n\nYou are right we don\'t have Java in here, so I will remove the  Java nature.',761,'AAALun//++Y='),(8,'2010-05-29 10:04:15','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nReplaced by I5124817f11eace98f93c958a021a62299a97cf74',761,'AAALun//+70='),(4,'2010-05-28 07:16:07','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nmissed to add changeid',762,'AAALun//++o='),(4,'2010-05-28 08:17:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',763,'AAALun//++U='),(46,'2010-05-28 10:22:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',763,'AAALun//+94='),(46,'2010-05-28 10:22:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',763,'AAALun//+98='),(46,'2010-05-28 11:18:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',764,'AAALun//+9s='),(46,'2010-05-28 11:18:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',764,'AAALun//+9w='),(1,'2010-05-28 21:36:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',765,'AAALun//+9c='),(1,'2010-05-28 21:36:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',765,'AAALun//+9g='),(1,'2010-05-28 21:37:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',766,'AAALun//+9U='),(1,'2010-05-28 21:37:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',766,'AAALun//+9Y='),(1,'2010-05-28 21:37:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',767,'AAALun//+9M='),(1,'2010-05-28 21:37:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',767,'AAALun//+9Q='),(1,'2010-05-28 21:37:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',768,'AAALun//+9E='),(1,'2010-05-28 21:37:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',768,'AAALun//+9I='),(1,'2010-05-28 22:20:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',769,'AAALun//+88='),(1,'2010-05-28 22:20:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',769,'AAALun//+9A='),(1,'2010-05-28 22:20:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',770,'AAALun//+80='),(1,'2010-05-28 22:20:19','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',770,'AAALun//+84='),(1,'2010-05-28 22:20:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',771,'AAALun//+8s='),(1,'2010-05-28 22:20:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',771,'AAALun//+8w='),(1,'2010-05-28 22:20:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',772,'AAALun//+8k='),(1,'2010-05-28 22:20:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',772,'AAALun//+8o='),(1,'2010-06-01 15:10:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',773,'AAALun//+50='),(1,'2010-06-01 15:10:07','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',773,'AAALun//+54='),(4,'2010-05-29 07:30:37','Uploaded patch set 3.',773,'AAALun//+74='),(1,'2010-05-28 23:56:58','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',773,'AAALun//+78='),(4,'2010-05-28 23:54:04','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\nnot sure if I got everything right',773,'AAALun//+8M='),(4,'2010-05-28 23:53:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',773,'AAALun//+8Q='),(4,'2010-05-28 23:19:39','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nThis is the draft for 0.8 (not tagged yet hence not final).\nI will send the corresponding generated iplog to the mailing list.\n\nUnfortunately running the jgit-cli command eclipse-ipzilla on the egit project currently fails with a parsing error (created Bug 314964 for that).\n\nI am too tired to look into that now, I first need some sleep ...',773,'AAALun//+8U='),(1,'2010-05-28 23:08:42','Patch Set 1: Do not submit; No score\n\n',773,'AAALun//+8Y='),(4,'2010-05-30 21:00:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',774,'AAALun//+7k='),(4,'2010-05-30 21:00:29','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',774,'AAALun//+7o='),(8,'2010-05-29 22:40:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',774,'AAALun//+7s='),(4,'2010-05-30 21:09:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',775,'AAALun//+7c='),(4,'2010-05-30 21:09:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',775,'AAALun//+7g='),(46,'2010-05-31 13:36:08','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',776,'AAALun//+7E='),(46,'2010-05-31 15:52:53','Uploaded patch set 4.',777,'AAALun//+64='),(46,'2010-05-31 15:52:11','Uploaded patch set 3.',777,'AAALun//+68='),(2,'2010-05-31 17:05:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',777,'AAALun//+6o='),(2,'2010-05-31 17:05:52','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',777,'AAALun//+6s='),(46,'2010-05-31 15:50:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',777,'AAALun//+7A='),(46,'2010-06-02 13:20:01','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nRebased to latest changes in master.',778,'AAALu3///+o='),(46,'2010-06-02 13:18:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',778,'AAALu3///+s='),(4,'2010-06-03 23:33:27','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',778,'AAALu3///3g='),(46,'2010-06-16 07:08:33','Patch Set 10: No score; No score\n\nI don\'t want to be pushy on this, but it starts to hinder other activities... Would be great if someone could review this sometime soon.',778,'AAALu3///bg='),(46,'2010-06-16 07:05:17','Uploaded patch set 10.',778,'AAALu3///bk='),(46,'2010-06-15 08:25:27','Uploaded patch set 9.',778,'AAALu3///hU='),(46,'2010-06-11 08:10:35','Uploaded patch set 8.',778,'AAALu3///qk='),(46,'2010-06-10 08:49:44','Patch Set 7: No score; No score\n\nRebased to master.',778,'AAALu3///r4='),(46,'2010-06-10 08:48:14','Uploaded patch set 7.',778,'AAALu3///r8='),(4,'2010-06-10 23:04:12','Patch Set 7: No score; No score\n\ncould you add some tests to safeguard this ?',778,'AAALu3///rM='),(4,'2010-06-04 12:44:14','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nPlease rebase and resolve conflicts with Alex\' latest patch.\n\nSome trailing whitespace in javadoc blank lines (watch out for red blocks in gerrit diff view).',778,'AAALu3///yc='),(4,'2010-06-04 21:06:57','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',778,'AAALu3///yI='),(46,'2010-06-04 15:33:52','Patch Set 6: No score; No score\n\nPhew... Sorry for the noise. Hope I got all the whitespaces.',778,'AAALu3///yM='),(46,'2010-06-04 15:29:29','Uploaded patch set 6.',778,'AAALu3///yQ='),(46,'2010-06-04 15:24:38','Uploaded patch set 5.',778,'AAALu3///yU='),(46,'2010-06-04 15:16:10','Uploaded patch set 4.',778,'AAALu3///yY='),(46,'2010-06-04 08:07:06','Uploaded patch set 3.',778,'AAALu3///zI='),(2,'2010-05-31 17:41:11','Patch Set 1: No score; IP review completed\n\nNice!\n\nThis will have to wait for 0.9.0 imho.',778,'AAALun//+6k='),(4,'2010-06-17 09:13:55','Patch Set 11:\n\n- rebased\n- fixed style nits\n\ngoing to test this now',778,'AAALv3///+A='),(4,'2010-06-17 09:10:16','Uploaded patch set 11.',778,'AAALv3///+E='),(4,'2010-06-17 11:03:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',778,'AAALv3///94='),(4,'2010-06-17 11:02:34','Patch Set 11: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nHaving two buttons \"link with editor\" \"link with selection\" in Git Repositories View with the same icon looks weird. Maybe this could be combined in one toggle \"link with selection\" ?\n\nTest coverage should be improved. Also there are quite some TODOs left. I propose to do these in subsequent changes to lower the overall review effort which comes with such large changes.',778,'AAALv3///98='),(4,'2010-06-01 12:05:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',779,'AAALun//+58='),(4,'2010-06-01 12:05:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI just also noticed this problem, thanks.',779,'AAALun//+6A='),(46,'2010-06-02 06:06:26','Patch Set 2: No score\n\n',780,'AAALu3////A='),(46,'2010-06-02 06:04:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',780,'AAALu3////I='),(2,'2010-06-01 18:02:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, just log the error message.',780,'AAALu3////k='),(4,'2010-06-03 22:44:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',780,'AAALu3///7E='),(4,'2010-06-03 22:44:40','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current HEAD',780,'AAALu3///7I='),(4,'2010-06-03 22:44:01','Uploaded patch set 3.',780,'AAALu3///7M='),(2,'2010-06-01 15:48:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',781,'AAALun//+5o='),(2,'2010-06-01 15:48:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Mathias.',781,'AAALun//+5s='),(2,'2010-06-01 15:50:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',782,'AAALun//+5g='),(2,'2010-06-01 15:50:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',782,'AAALun//+5k='),(2,'2010-06-01 17:44:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',783,'AAALu3////4='),(2,'2010-06-01 17:44:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. In the future, we may want to consider not overloading our Activator with services. We are mixing a lot of concerns currently in our Activator.',783,'AAALu3////8='),(2,'2010-06-01 18:31:30','Patch Set 1:\n\n1. the RCS must be changed to also scan repositories for which there are no projects\n\n+1\n\n2. the repository change listeners should be unregistered during the dispose() method of the view\n\n+1\n\n3. instead of letting the view itself implement the listener interface one could do this with a final member of the view (an anonymous implementation): avoids pollution of the viewer class\n\n+1\n\nWe should work on an updated patch.',783,'AAALu3////c='),(46,'2010-06-01 18:28:09','Patch Set 1:\n\nUhm... Obviously I\'m a bit late here... Anyway, my comments on this:\n\n0. Great idea!\n\n1. the RCS must be changed to also scan repositories for which there are no projects\n\n2. the repository change listeners should be unregistered during the dispose() method of the view\n\n3. instead of letting the view itself implement the listener interface one could do this with a final member of the view (an anonymous implementation): avoids pollution of the viewer class',783,'AAALu3////g='),(44,'2010-06-01 19:55:42','Patch Set 1:\n\nRCS was already extended in this patch. It scans all repos.\nI\'ll provide an additional patch for the two remaining issues.',783,'AAALu3////Y='),(2,'2010-06-01 18:02:02','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nOops!',784,'AAALu3////s='),(4,'2010-06-02 01:01:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',785,'AAALu3////M='),(4,'2010-06-02 12:25:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',785,'AAALu3///+0='),(4,'2010-06-02 12:27:41','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nmessed up with branches',785,'AAALu3///+w='),(46,'2010-06-02 11:15:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',786,'AAALu3///+4='),(46,'2010-06-02 09:21:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',786,'AAALu3///+8='),(4,'2010-06-02 14:22:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',787,'AAALu3///+A='),(NULL,'2010-06-02 13:27:35','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit 90fa5175fa4d3db92c596eecb9ed3d89eb614cd5 which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',787,'AAALu3///+c='),(NULL,'2010-06-02 13:27:15','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit 90fa5175fa4d3db92c596eecb9ed3d89eb614cd5 which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',787,'AAALu3///+g='),(46,'2010-06-02 13:27:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRetested ok based on 0.8 stable branch.',787,'AAALu3///+k='),(NULL,'2010-06-02 13:49:20','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit 90fa5175fa4d3db92c596eecb9ed3d89eb614cd5 which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',787,'AAALu3///+M='),(NULL,'2010-06-02 13:41:26','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit 90fa5175fa4d3db92c596eecb9ed3d89eb614cd5 which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',787,'AAALu3///+Y='),(2,'2010-06-02 14:25:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',787,'AAALu3///9s='),(2,'2010-06-02 14:25:21','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDone.',787,'AAALu3///9w='),(4,'2010-06-02 14:22:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',788,'AAALu3///+E='),(2,'2010-06-02 14:25:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',788,'AAALu3///9k='),(2,'2010-06-02 14:25:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDone.',788,'AAALu3///9o='),(4,'2010-06-02 14:22:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',789,'AAALu3///+I='),(NULL,'2010-06-02 13:41:52','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I87813bef, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I366d1779, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on commit 90fa5175fa4d3db92c596eecb9ed3d89eb614cd5 which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',789,'AAALu3///+Q='),(2,'2010-06-02 13:41:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good!',789,'AAALu3///+U='),(46,'2010-06-02 14:24:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\n',789,'AAALu3///90='),(2,'2010-06-02 14:26:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',789,'AAALu3///9c='),(2,'2010-06-02 14:26:44','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.\n\nWe should ensure these get pushed to master also.',789,'AAALu3///9g='),(2,'2010-06-02 14:24:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',790,'AAALu3///94='),(2,'2010-06-02 14:24:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',790,'AAALu3///98='),(4,'2010-06-04 00:12:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',791,'AAALu3///20='),(4,'2010-06-04 00:12:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',791,'AAALu3///2s='),(4,'2010-06-04 00:12:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current HEAD',791,'AAALu3///2w='),(5,'2010-06-02 16:26:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',792,'AAALu3///9U='),(1,'2010-06-05 01:48:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',792,'AAALu3///wU='),(1,'2010-06-05 01:48:51','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',792,'AAALu3///wY='),(8,'2010-06-04 21:46:00','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nnitpicks only',792,'AAALu3///xk='),(4,'2010-06-04 22:20:33','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- added copyright statement for Christian\n- fixed nitpicks',792,'AAALu3///xU='),(4,'2010-06-04 22:18:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',792,'AAALu3///xY='),(1,'2010-06-02 21:48:32','Patch Set 1:\n\nNote, this change turned out to be a bad build, so I rewound the branches and discarded it entirely from the project history.',793,'AAALu3///8c='),(1,'2010-06-02 21:13:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',793,'AAALu3///9M='),(1,'2010-06-02 21:13:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',793,'AAALu3///9Q='),(1,'2010-06-02 22:58:33','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',794,'AAALu3///70='),(1,'2010-06-02 22:55:45','Uploaded patch set 3.',794,'AAALu3///74='),(1,'2010-06-02 22:55:05','Patch Set 2:\n\nArrgh.  Yes.',794,'AAALu3///78='),(1,'2010-06-02 23:08:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',794,'AAALu3///7s='),(4,'2010-06-02 23:08:31','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',794,'AAALu3///7w='),(4,'2010-06-02 21:26:54','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',794,'AAALu3///84='),(4,'2010-06-02 22:48:26','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\nhttp://communitymapbuilder.osgeo.org/display/MAVEN/Dependency+Mediation+and+Conflict+Resolution says:\n\nAs releases are considered newer than the snapshot they belong to, they will be chosen over an old snapshot if found.\n\nShouldn\'t then 0.8.2-SNAPSHOT follow as next dev version after 0.8.1 ?',794,'AAALu3///8A='),(1,'2010-06-02 22:36:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',794,'AAALu3///8E='),(1,'2010-06-02 22:21:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',794,'AAALu3///8I='),(4,'2010-06-02 21:31:25','Patch Set 1:\n\nwas already wrong in http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,793',794,'AAALu3///8s='),(1,'2010-06-02 21:20:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',795,'AAALu3///9E='),(1,'2010-06-02 21:20:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',795,'AAALu3///9I='),(1,'2010-06-02 21:46:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',796,'AAALu3///8g='),(1,'2010-06-02 21:41:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',796,'AAALu3///8k='),(1,'2010-06-02 21:41:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',796,'AAALu3///8o='),(1,'2010-06-02 21:50:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',797,'AAALu3///8U='),(1,'2010-06-02 21:50:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',797,'AAALu3///8Y='),(1,'2010-06-02 22:12:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',798,'AAALu3///8M='),(1,'2010-06-02 22:11:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',798,'AAALu3///8Q='),(1,'2010-06-02 23:19:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',799,'AAALu3///7k='),(4,'2010-06-02 23:18:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',799,'AAALu3///7o='),(1,'2010-06-02 23:20:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',800,'AAALu3///7c='),(1,'2010-06-02 23:20:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',800,'AAALu3///7g='),(4,'2010-06-03 23:43:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',801,'AAALu3///3M='),(4,'2010-06-03 23:43:21','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current HEAD\n\nWe put bug ids in the footer.\n\nWe prefer to have the reasoning of why a change is necessary in the commit message so that understanding commits doesn\'t need a lookup of bugzilla entries.',801,'AAALu3///3Q='),(4,'2010-06-03 23:41:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',801,'AAALu3///3U='),(4,'2010-06-03 23:50:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',802,'AAALu3///28='),(4,'2010-06-03 23:50:16','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current HEAD',802,'AAALu3///3A='),(4,'2010-06-03 23:49:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',802,'AAALu3///3E='),(1,'2010-06-03 23:51:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',803,'AAALu3///24='),(3,'2010-06-03 23:40:04','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nIf we have this function, we can then determine from the client whether or not the URL is a supported type, instead of having a fixed-set defined in EGit.',803,'AAALu3///3c='),(1,'2010-06-03 23:49:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nOK.  I had planned to do that differently though.  I instead wanted JGit to export some sort of list of TransportMethod objects or something that described the different transports it supported.  Then the UI could just offer a view over that list of objects.  And those objects could also tell us if they support authentication or not, username/password or private key, or etc.  so the UI could adapt based on what the transport claims it can do, rather than hardcoding.  This might be useful for an S3 type storage where its not really username/password that makes up the credentials for connecting.\n\nBut, in the interm, this is fine.',803,'AAALu3///3I='),(4,'2010-06-03 23:40:25','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nmissed to add changeid',804,'AAALu3///3Y='),(3,'2010-06-04 00:21:19','Patch Set 1: No score\n\nNote that this depends on http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,803 but since they are two repositories, I didn\'t know how to set up the dependencies between them.\n\nPlease let me know if I should refactor the name of the \'updateFields\' method.\n\nThis also fixes the case where a presetUri is passed in, in that it now sets the user/parameter fields where before it wouldn\'t have.',805,'AAALu3///2o='),(4,'2010-06-04 12:20:37','Patch Set 2:\n\n- rebased to current HEAD\n- polished commit message',805,'AAALu3///y0='),(4,'2010-06-04 12:20:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',805,'AAALu3///y4='),(4,'2010-06-04 12:19:57','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNice idea, thanks',805,'AAALu3///y8='),(4,'2010-06-04 12:18:03','Uploaded patch set 2.',805,'AAALu3///zA='),(4,'2010-06-05 20:21:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',806,'AAALu3///uc='),(4,'2010-06-05 20:21:53','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',806,'AAALu3///ug='),(8,'2010-06-05 10:40:41','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',806,'AAALu3///v4='),(3,'2010-06-05 09:11:37','Uploaded patch set 3.',806,'AAALu3///wA='),(3,'2010-06-04 21:40:47','Uploaded patch set 2.',806,'AAALu3///x0='),(4,'2010-06-04 22:08:58','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\n',806,'AAALu3///xc='),(8,'2010-06-04 21:42:00','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\n',806,'AAALu3///xw='),(3,'2010-06-04 21:35:49','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nSquashing and resubmitting',807,'AAALu3///yA='),(3,'2010-06-04 21:36:08','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nSquashing and resubmitting',808,'AAALu3///x8='),(3,'2010-06-04 21:35:13','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nSquashing and resubmitting',809,'AAALu3///yE='),(2,'2010-06-07 14:26:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',810,'AAALu3///uM='),(2,'2010-06-07 14:26:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, we need this in Red Hat and Fedora land.',810,'AAALu3///uQ='),(4,'2010-06-05 12:51:36','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nduplicate',811,'AAALu3///vU='),(4,'2010-06-10 22:37:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',812,'AAALu3///rg='),(4,'2010-06-10 22:37:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',812,'AAALu3///rk='),(4,'2010-06-10 22:37:06','Uploaded patch set 2.',812,'AAALu3///ro='),(4,'2010-06-10 22:35:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',812,'AAALu3///rs='),(4,'2010-06-11 23:23:27','Uploaded patch set 3.',813,'AAALu3///p0='),(4,'2010-06-12 21:30:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',813,'AAALu3///pk='),(4,'2010-06-12 21:30:48','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',813,'AAALu3///po='),(4,'2010-06-11 23:23:45','Patch Set 3: No score; No score\n\nrebased',813,'AAALu3///pw='),(46,'2010-06-11 10:10:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',813,'AAALu3///qg='),(4,'2010-06-10 22:54:25','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nI think it would be useful if the search button would be the default button when the dialog comes up. This would allow to hit the search button using the return key. As soon as a valid search result is select this should switch to the OK button. The other option would be to have the OK button as default and provide keybord shortcuts for the other buttons.\n\nAlso I feel that the distribution of buttons across the dialog could be improved. Currently there are buttons in all corners of the dialog which requires quite a lot of mouse movements to select the diverse buttons. Just see how much you must move the mouse to take the standard path :\n- \"Browse\" (upper right corner) to select directory\n- \"Search\" (upper left corner) to search repositories\n- \"Select all\" (lower left corner) or click checkboxes to select repositories to import\n- \"OK\" or \"Cancel\" (lower right corner)',813,'AAALu3///rc='),(4,'2010-06-10 22:58:51','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',813,'AAALu3///rU='),(4,'2010-06-11 22:53:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',814,'AAALu3///p4='),(4,'2010-06-11 22:53:33','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCorrected menu path for clone git repository in commit message',814,'AAALu3///p8='),(4,'2010-06-11 22:52:47','Uploaded patch set 3.',814,'AAALu3///qA='),(46,'2010-06-11 06:27:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',814,'AAALu3///qo='),(4,'2010-06-10 23:02:01','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\nIt\'s not obvious to me how to reproduce the problem which is solved here. Could you explain this in the commit message.',814,'AAALu3///rQ='),(4,'2010-06-07 20:44:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',815,'AAALu3///uE='),(4,'2010-06-07 20:44:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',815,'AAALu3///uI='),(2,'2010-06-07 21:30:57','Patch Set 1: No score; IP review completed\n\nHrmm... it\'s on master when I also need it on stable-0.8... what\'s the magic for me to get me to push to stable-0.8?',816,'AAALu3///t0='),(2,'2010-06-07 21:42:31','Patch Set 2:\n\nI\'ve never pushed to Gerrit not on master.\n\nWhat\'s the magic when doing a \'git push review\' ?',816,'AAALu3///tc='),(1,'2010-06-07 21:40:07','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nThis is still slated to \'master\' and the 0.9 series.  Shouldn\'t it really be on \'maint\'?',816,'AAALu3///tg='),(2,'2010-06-07 21:38:02','Patch Set 2: No score; IP review completed\n\nTell me about it...\n\nhttp://eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc.php',816,'AAALu3///tk='),(2,'2010-06-07 21:37:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',816,'AAALu3///to='),(2,'2010-06-07 21:33:15','Patch Set 1:\n\nActually, notice.html should be license.html',816,'AAALu3///ts='),(2,'2010-06-07 21:45:48','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nDone!',816,'AAALu3///tU='),(1,'2010-06-07 21:32:17','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nShouldn\'t this be on the \'maint\' branch if you want it for 0.8.x series?\n\nI also love the mention everywhere of the EPL, yet the EPL doesn\'t apply here at all.  Yay for applying a blanket legal document in a context in which it was not really designed for?',816,'AAALu3///tw='),(1,'2010-06-07 21:44:30','Patch Set 2:\n\nTo push to another branch, e.g. maint:\n\n  git push URL HEAD:refs/for/maint\n\nBut you can\'t make Gerrit change the branch for an existing change.  So to switch branches you need to abandon this change, and create a new change (so delete your Change-Id and amend again to get a new Change-Id).',816,'AAALu3///tY='),(1,'2010-06-07 21:49:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',817,'AAALu3///tI='),(1,'2010-06-07 21:49:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',817,'AAALu3///tM='),(2,'2010-06-07 21:48:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThanks for schooling me on git push Shawn.\n\nThis should be good for us to meet the Foundation\'s SULA requirements.\n\nhttp://eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc.php#Why',817,'AAALu3///tQ='),(1,'2010-06-08 00:47:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',818,'AAALu3///s4='),(2,'2010-06-08 03:37:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',818,'AAALu3///ss='),(2,'2010-06-07 21:57:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nSigh.',818,'AAALu3///tE='),(4,'2010-06-08 00:41:30','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nwrong branch',819,'AAALu3///tA='),(4,'2010-06-08 00:50:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nverified that legal info can be accessed with this change',820,'AAALu3///s0='),(1,'2010-06-08 00:47:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',820,'AAALu3///s8='),(2,'2010-06-08 03:37:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',820,'AAALu3///sw='),(4,'2010-06-16 09:07:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',821,'AAALu3///a8='),(4,'2010-06-16 09:07:39','Patch Set 5:\n\n- rebased\n- corrected typo in test class\n- improved commit message',821,'AAALu3///bA='),(4,'2010-06-16 09:07:00','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',821,'AAALu3///bE='),(4,'2010-06-16 09:06:32','Uploaded patch set 5.',821,'AAALu3///bI='),(44,'2010-06-15 11:09:57','Uploaded patch set 4.',821,'AAALu3///hI='),(44,'2010-06-15 09:28:16','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\njust detected a bug.',821,'AAALu3///hQ='),(44,'2010-06-15 07:31:42','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nadded a test case for BranchOperation & rebased the change.',821,'AAALu3///hs='),(44,'2010-06-15 07:29:39','Uploaded patch set 3.',821,'AAALu3///hw='),(4,'2010-06-10 22:57:09','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nAs Robin suggested I also think we should add some tests here.',821,'AAALu3///rY='),(44,'2010-06-09 08:51:40','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nRebased the change and adjusted the commit message.\nA further commit could implement asking the user to open\nprojects that were added by a workdir checkout.',821,'AAALu3///sA='),(8,'2010-06-08 19:57:24','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nMostly ok, but the commit message should be clearer. It contains a bit too much text actually. Also meantion that\nthis is not a complete solution since it does not open projects that appear. This would happen due to refactoring. The actual implementation of that can be subject of another patch. In those cases the workspace would still be inconsistent, even when we have all projects.\n\nI also think the user should be warned that closing/opening is about to happen and have the option to abort before anything happens.\n\nWe need more Unit tests. Yep, it\'s hard. Whether you do it using SWTBot or not is less important to me, but it\'s probably a bit better if you can do without.',821,'AAALu3///sc='),(44,'2010-06-09 08:48:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',821,'AAALu3///sE='),(8,'2010-06-08 21:30:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',822,'AAALu3///sM='),(8,'2010-06-08 21:30:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nadded reference to JGit change id',822,'AAALu3///sQ='),(8,'2010-06-08 21:29:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',822,'AAALu3///sU='),(8,'2010-06-08 21:28:37','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nno change id',823,'AAALu3///sY='),(4,'2010-06-10 23:25:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',824,'AAALu3///q8='),(44,'2010-06-10 14:49:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',824,'AAALu3///r0='),(4,'2010-06-10 23:25:16','Patch Set 2:\n\nrebased',824,'AAALu3///rA='),(4,'2010-06-10 23:25:01','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',824,'AAALu3///rE='),(4,'2010-06-10 23:24:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',824,'AAALu3///rI='),(1,'2010-06-14 16:41:29','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nThis is only a first pass review.  I found enough things that I gave up and didn\'t go through the detailed logic of the compare, because I suspect it will need to change if you take my suggestions and look at adding a WorkingTreeIterator into the process.',825,'AAALu3///j4='),(4,'2010-06-10 23:46:36','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',825,'AAALu3///q0='),(5,'2010-06-11 05:35:48','Patch Set 2: No score; No score\n\njust added a missing license header',825,'AAALu3///qs='),(5,'2010-06-11 05:34:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',825,'AAALu3///qw='),(5,'2010-06-10 16:25:09','Patch Set 1: No score; IP review completed\n\nthere are unresolved problems which lead to to failing tests. I had to disable tests by overwriting in DirCacheCheckout. Please see the TODO\'s in this file and my question in [1]\n\n[1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/jgit-dev/msg00377.html',825,'AAALu3///rw='),(5,'2010-07-22 15:46:12','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',825,'AAALw3///1o='),(5,'2010-07-22 14:20:29','Uploaded patch set 6.',825,'AAALw3///2g='),(5,'2010-07-22 14:32:26','Patch Set 5: (2 inline comments)\n\n',825,'AAALw3///2U='),(5,'2010-07-22 14:31:58','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI worked in two comments from Shawn. But I had to seperate out the work on NameConflictTreeWalk into an own change.\n\nStill I am not so happy with the tests. I have put some questions in ReadTreeTest and some assertions are now commented out because they will break DirCacheCheckout.',825,'AAALw3///2Y='),(1,'2010-07-16 02:10:14','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\n',825,'AAALwn////E='),(1,'2010-07-16 02:14:26','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nThis looks a lot better.  I think I\'m down to one API style nit I missed earlier, and I\'m still trying to get rid of that Tree class..',825,'AAALwn///+8='),(1,'2010-07-06 20:46:29','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(14 inline comments)\n\n',825,'AAALwX///J0='),(4,'2010-07-06 15:14:33','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(20 inline comments)\n\n',825,'AAALwX///ME='),(5,'2010-07-05 23:50:59','Uploaded patch set 4.',825,'AAALwX///Pc='),(5,'2010-07-05 23:58:27','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nthis is the new dirchachecheckout working for four iterators (including a WorkingTreeIterator).\nThere are still a few tests failing (thats why I give myself -1) and some of them because I think the tests are wrong. The tests where written originally for WorkDirCheckout and worked in that environment but fail when testing DirCacheCheckout.\nI recommend that the comments in ReadTreeTest.java which I added for all failing tests should be reviewed to get a clear picture about the semantics.',825,'AAALwX///PQ='),(5,'2010-07-05 23:52:18','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',825,'AAALwX///PU='),(5,'2010-07-05 23:51:57','Patch Set 2: (20 inline comments)\n\n',825,'AAALwX///PY='),(5,'2010-07-05 23:12:11','Uploaded patch set 3.',825,'AAALwX///QQ='),(5,'2010-07-09 14:20:17','Uploaded patch set 5.',825,'AAALwX//+4o='),(5,'2010-07-08 23:47:22','Patch Set 4: (34 inline comments)\n\n',825,'AAALwX//+6Q='),(5,'2010-08-03 07:21:32','Uploaded patch set 7.',825,'AAALxn///7E='),(5,'2010-08-17 22:50:08','Uploaded patch set 9.',825,'AAALyH///l0='),(5,'2010-08-18 08:45:20','Patch Set 10:\n\nSmall fix which made some more test succeed. But there are still some comments in ReadTreeTest.java which are to be reviewd.',825,'AAALyH///lQ='),(5,'2010-08-18 08:44:08','Uploaded patch set 10.',825,'AAALyH///lU='),(5,'2010-08-17 22:12:34','Patch Set 8:\n\njust fixed one small comment typo found by robin.',825,'AAALyH///mA='),(5,'2010-08-17 22:11:33','Uploaded patch set 8.',825,'AAALyH///mE='),(5,'2010-08-17 22:09:03','Patch Set 7: (1 inline comment)\n\n',825,'AAALyH///mI='),(8,'2010-08-16 22:34:12','Patch Set 7: (1 inline comment)\n\n',825,'AAALyH///oU='),(5,'2010-08-23 13:06:01','Patch Set 14: IP review completed\n\nfixed last failing test by taking care of File/Directory conflict case #20.\n\nNow all tests succeed. Still there are questions in ReadTreeTest.java regarding commented-out tests.',825,'AAALyn///+g='),(5,'2010-08-23 13:03:08','Uploaded patch set 14.',825,'AAALyn///+k='),(5,'2010-08-23 12:56:05','Uploaded patch set 13.',825,'AAALyn///+o='),(5,'2010-08-24 13:38:28','Uploaded patch set 17.',825,'AAALyn///38='),(5,'2010-08-24 06:18:22','Patch Set 16:\n\nAnd still there are some questions to be answered. This implementation does not succeed on all tests which old WorkdirCheckout passed. I have put some comments in.',825,'AAALyn///4c='),(5,'2010-08-24 06:18:15','Patch Set 16:\n\nAnd still there are some questions to be answered. This implementation does not succeed on all tests which old WorkdirCheckout passed. I have put some comments in.',825,'AAALyn///4g='),(5,'2010-08-24 06:18:11','Patch Set 16:\n\nAnd still there are some questions to be answered. This implementation does not succeed on all tests which old WorkdirCheckout passed. I have put some comments in.',825,'AAALyn///4k='),(5,'2010-08-24 06:18:07','Patch Set 16: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\nAnd still there are some questions to be answered. This implementation does not succeed on all tests which old WorkdirCheckout passed. I have put some comments in.',825,'AAALyn///4o='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:55:57','Patch Set 16: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nAddressed some of Shawn\'s concerns and tested.\n\nLooks great guys.',825,'AAALyn///5I='),(2,'2010-08-24 02:55:32','Uploaded patch set 16.',825,'AAALyn///5M='),(1,'2010-08-23 23:54:05','Patch Set 15: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nI think I\'m reasonably happy with this code now.',825,'AAALyn///7E='),(5,'2010-08-23 14:23:47','Uploaded patch set 15.',825,'AAALyn///98='),(5,'2010-08-23 14:27:04','Patch Set 15: IP review completed\n\n- Fixed case Directory/File #19\n- wrote a new test for Directory/File #8',825,'AAALyn///9o='),(4,'2010-08-27 14:14:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',825,'AAALyn///nA='),(4,'2010-08-27 14:14:43','Patch Set 18: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',825,'AAALyn///nE='),(4,'2010-08-27 14:13:40','Uploaded patch set 18.',825,'AAALyn///nI='),(4,'2010-08-26 21:44:02','Patch Set 17: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',825,'AAALyn///pI='),(5,'2010-08-20 08:31:26','Patch Set 11: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nJust rebased to master and removed one stale comment',825,'AAALyX////A='),(5,'2010-08-20 08:26:22','Uploaded patch set 11.',825,'AAALyX////E='),(4,'2010-08-20 10:02:59','Patch Set 11: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nran the tests on Mac, the following test is still failing (which is consistent with your tests on Windows now), so I would say this is still work in progress and not yet ready for submission :\n\njunit.framework.AssertionFailedError\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.jgit.lib.ReadTreeTest.assertConflict(ReadTreeTest.java:496)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.lib.ReadTreeTest.testUntrackedConflicts(ReadTreeTest.java:553)\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 junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:164)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:130)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)\n	at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)\n	at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:120)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:230)\n	at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:225)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:130)\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.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197)',825,'AAALyX///+E='),(5,'2010-08-20 16:21:32','Patch Set 12:\n\nrebased to master and fixed some comments',825,'AAALyX///70='),(5,'2010-08-20 16:17:41','Uploaded patch set 12.',825,'AAALyX///78='),(46,'2010-06-11 11:34:02','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nOops.',826,'AAALu3///qc='),(4,'2010-06-12 21:42:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nrebased',827,'AAALu3///pc='),(2,'2010-06-14 04:01:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',827,'AAALu3///pE='),(4,'2010-06-12 21:41:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',827,'AAALu3///pg='),(2,'2010-06-14 04:01:06','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nYap this works.',827,'AAALu3///pI='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',828,'AAALu3///h8='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:55:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',828,'AAALu3///jM='),(8,'2010-06-14 21:26:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',828,'AAALu3///js='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:41:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; No score\n\nI\'m fine with this, assuming the Javadoc is corrected.  :-)',828,'AAALu3///ls='),(4,'2010-06-11 22:33:14','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\n',828,'AAALu3///qE='),(4,'2010-06-16 00:04:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',829,'AAALu3///b4='),(4,'2010-06-16 00:04:39','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',829,'AAALu3///b8='),(4,'2010-06-16 00:03:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',829,'AAALu3///cA='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:40:50','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nFancy!\n\nWe may want to make this customizable in the future.',829,'AAALu3///e0='),(NULL,'2010-06-15 15:40:52','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.',829,'AAALu3///ew='),(8,'2010-06-12 19:05:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',829,'AAALu3///ps='),(4,'2010-06-12 21:44:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',829,'AAALu3///pY='),(4,'2010-06-11 22:27:21','Patch Set 1: No score; No score\n\n',829,'AAALu3///qM='),(4,'2010-06-14 08:50:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',830,'AAALu3///o0='),(4,'2010-06-14 08:50:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',830,'AAALu3///ow='),(46,'2010-06-14 08:44:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',830,'AAALu3///pA='),(4,'2010-06-14 00:27:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',830,'AAALu3///pQ='),(4,'2010-06-14 14:04:45','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nscrewed up 0.8.3 hence respinning',831,'AAALu3///os='),(4,'2010-06-14 08:49:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',832,'AAALu3///o4='),(46,'2010-06-14 08:46:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',832,'AAALu3///o8='),(4,'2010-06-14 00:28:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',832,'AAALu3///pM='),(4,'2010-06-14 14:05:03','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nscrewed up 0.8.3 hence respinnning',833,'AAALu3///oo='),(2,'2010-06-14 14:16:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',834,'AAALu3///oQ='),(2,'2010-06-14 14:16:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',834,'AAALu3///oU='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:24:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',835,'AAALu3///gk='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:24:15','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, +1 from Tech PMC.',835,'AAALu3///go='),(1,'2010-06-15 14:43:17','Patch Set 3:\n\nMatthias, can you +1 IP review this for SAP?',835,'AAALu3///hA='),(1,'2010-06-15 14:42:47','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\n',835,'AAALu3///hE='),(46,'2010-06-15 08:14:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',835,'AAALu3///hY='),(46,'2010-06-14 16:03:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',835,'AAALu3///lU='),(1,'2010-06-14 14:56:33','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nThanks for writing this!  I\'ve been putting off adding a pgm.Config class because we didn\'t have the ability to enumerate the sections and keys.\n\nPlease also add some new JUnit test cases to RepositoryConfigTest to cover the section name functions you are adding.\n\nOnce this is submitted, I\'ll follow-up with a resurrected copy of my pgm.Config class that I started writing, but never finished.',835,'AAALu3///nQ='),(46,'2010-06-16 07:01:24','Patch Set 10: No score\n\nFixed the first bug caused by this change: Repository.scanForRepoChanges() must check for bare-ness.',836,'AAALu3///bo='),(46,'2010-06-16 06:59:22','Uploaded patch set 10.',836,'AAALu3///bs='),(46,'2010-06-16 06:36:55','Uploaded patch set 9.',836,'AAALu3///bw='),(1,'2010-06-15 18:51:41','Patch Set 8: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',836,'AAALu3///c0='),(46,'2010-06-15 18:38:44','Uploaded patch set 8.',836,'AAALu3///dI='),(46,'2010-06-15 18:37:35','Patch Set 7: No score\n\n',836,'AAALu3///dM='),(1,'2010-06-15 18:07:21','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nMain code is good, now onto the tests... :-)',836,'AAALu3///dw='),(1,'2010-06-15 16:13:25','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nLogic looks right now.\n\nBefore we submit I think we need:\n\n* Unit tests for the branches in the constructor.\n* Consistency in the type of exception thrown when bare.\n* Allow setWorkDir on a bare repository, making it non-bare.',836,'AAALu3///ec='),(1,'2010-06-15 16:07:44','Patch Set 6: No score; No score\n\nNah, if setWorkDir(File) is called, just set workDir property, and then we\'ll assume non-bare repository.  Which is what the caller told us.',836,'AAALu3///eo='),(46,'2010-06-15 17:48:47','Uploaded patch set 7.',836,'AAALu3///eY='),(46,'2010-06-15 15:39:03','Patch Set 6: No score\n\nI wonder about setWorkDir()... Not sure if the configuration should be checked there...',836,'AAALu3///fY='),(1,'2010-06-15 14:59:36','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nSorry this is turning into a nightmare, but the corresponding code in git-core is equally disastrous.  For legacy reasons, you can\'t just trust core.bare (turns out, this is actually my fault in git-core).  Even modern repositories sometimes don\'t have core.bare set, e.g. the `repo` tool used by Android forcibly removes core.bare when it creates a new git repository and requires the fallback detection logic to be used.\n\nGiven the complexity of this logic, I wonder if we shouldn\'t add some unit tests to help validate that the behavior matches what we expect to occur under the various states.',836,'AAALu3///gw='),(46,'2010-06-15 15:33:24','Uploaded patch set 6.',836,'AAALu3///gY='),(46,'2010-06-15 08:06:02','Uploaded patch set 5.',836,'AAALu3///ho='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:36:59','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nI like this better.  I added a hint about how to check if a variable was set in the configuration.',836,'AAALu3///lw='),(46,'2010-06-14 15:26:48','Uploaded patch set 4.',836,'AAALu3///m0='),(46,'2010-06-14 15:28:39','Patch Set 4: No score\n\nI couldn\'t quite do this according to the pseudo code by Shawn, as the config API does not allow to check whether a value is \"set\" (you always have to provide a default value).\nI hope this is correct anyway.',836,'AAALu3///mw='),(1,'2010-06-14 14:45:09','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',836,'AAALu3///no='),(46,'2010-06-14 14:43:18','Uploaded patch set 3.',836,'AAALu3///oA='),(2,'2010-06-14 14:07:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nLooks, but we should probably have constants.',836,'AAALu3///og='),(46,'2010-06-14 14:40:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',836,'AAALu3///oI='),(1,'2010-06-16 19:06:53','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\nOK, this looks fine to me now.  I think some of the tests are redundant, but I\'m happy to submit it as-is.',836,'AAALu3///ZA='),(1,'2010-06-17 02:34:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',836,'AAALv3////s='),(1,'2010-06-16 22:15:09','Patch Set 10:\n\nChris/Matthias, can we get this IP +1?  Its 363 insertions so slightly non-trivial.',836,'AAALvX///+o='),(2,'2010-06-16 22:26:07','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n+1 from Tech PMC',836,'AAALvX///94='),(2,'2010-06-14 14:07:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',837,'AAALu3///oc='),(4,'2010-06-14 14:07:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',837,'AAALu3///oY='),(4,'2010-06-14 14:43:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',838,'AAALu3///n4='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:13:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',839,'AAALu3///nI='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:13:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',839,'AAALu3///nM='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:13:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',840,'AAALu3///nA='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:13:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',840,'AAALu3///nE='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:13:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',841,'AAALu3///m4='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:13:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',841,'AAALu3///m8='),(4,'2010-06-15 23:34:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',842,'AAALu3///cU='),(4,'2010-06-15 23:34:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nverified on windows using msysgit environment',842,'AAALu3///cY='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:31:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',843,'AAALu3///mU='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:31:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',843,'AAALu3///mY='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:31:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',844,'AAALu3///mM='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:31:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',844,'AAALu3///mQ='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:31:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',845,'AAALu3///mE='),(1,'2010-06-14 15:31:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',845,'AAALu3///mI='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',846,'AAALu3///iA='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:56:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',846,'AAALu3///jI='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',847,'AAALu3///iE='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:56:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',847,'AAALu3///jE='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',848,'AAALu3///iI='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:57:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',848,'AAALu3///jA='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:57:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nKind of pointless, these are all simple unit tests.  But OK.  :-)',849,'AAALu3///i8='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',849,'AAALu3///iM='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:57:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',850,'AAALu3///i4='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',850,'AAALu3///iQ='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',851,'AAALu3///iU='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:58:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',851,'AAALu3///iw='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:58:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',852,'AAALu3///is='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',852,'AAALu3///iY='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',853,'AAALu3///ic='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',853,'AAALu3///io='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',854,'AAALu3///ig='),(1,'2010-06-14 23:59:32','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',854,'AAALu3///ik='),(8,'2010-06-14 21:36:13','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nThis whole series was the result of a round with findbugs',854,'AAALu3///jg='),(8,'2010-06-14 21:34:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',854,'AAALu3///jo='),(8,'2010-06-14 21:48:20','Uploaded patch set 3.',854,'AAALu3///jY='),(8,'2010-06-14 21:35:33','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\ndup, bad change id',855,'AAALu3///jk='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:40:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',856,'AAALu3///e4='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:40:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',856,'AAALu3///e8='),(1,'2010-06-17 05:29:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',857,'AAALv3////Y='),(1,'2010-06-22 22:59:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',857,'AAALwX////k='),(4,'2010-06-23 15:20:58','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',857,'AAALwX///+E='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:16','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased after being +1 by Matthias',857,'AAALwX///7c='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',857,'AAALwX///7Y='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:58:13','Uploaded patch set 4.',857,'AAALwX///8w='),(1,'2010-06-17 05:29:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',858,'AAALv3////c='),(1,'2010-06-22 22:59:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',858,'AAALwX////o='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:35:40','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',858,'AAALwX///60='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:33:46','Uploaded patch set 4.',858,'AAALwX///7I='),(8,'2010-07-01 22:10:48','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',858,'AAALwX///lI='),(1,'2010-06-30 16:06:06','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',858,'AAALwX///tY='),(3,'2010-06-30 08:46:39','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',858,'AAALwX///vY='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:59','Change has been successfully pushed.',858,'AAALxH///5A='),(1,'2010-06-15 00:10:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',859,'AAALu3///h4='),(1,'2010-06-17 05:29:50','Uploaded patch set 3.',859,'AAALv3////g='),(1,'2010-06-22 22:59:10','Uploaded patch set 4.',859,'AAALwX////s='),(1,'2010-06-22 23:02:29','Uploaded patch set 5.',859,'AAALwX////Y='),(1,'2010-06-23 00:19:03','Uploaded patch set 6.',859,'AAALwX///+4='),(1,'2010-06-27 01:52:36','Uploaded patch set 7.',859,'AAALwX///1Q='),(3,'2010-07-01 11:33:51','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',859,'AAALwX///oA='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:34:27','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',859,'AAALwX///Q4='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:55','Change has been successfully pushed.',859,'AAALxH///6E='),(1,'2010-06-15 00:10:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',860,'AAALu3///h0='),(1,'2010-06-17 05:29:51','Uploaded patch set 3.',860,'AAALv3////U='),(1,'2010-06-22 23:02:31','Uploaded patch set 5.',860,'AAALwX////A='),(1,'2010-06-22 22:59:11','Uploaded patch set 4.',860,'AAALwX////c='),(1,'2010-06-23 00:19:05','Uploaded patch set 6.',860,'AAALwX///+g='),(1,'2010-06-27 01:52:38','Uploaded patch set 7.',860,'AAALwX///08='),(8,'2010-07-01 23:26:43','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',860,'AAALwX///i8='),(1,'2010-07-01 21:54:04','Patch Set 7: (3 inline comments)\n\n',860,'AAALwX///lw='),(3,'2010-07-01 19:01:08','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',860,'AAALwX///ms='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:55','Change has been successfully pushed.',860,'AAALxH///6I='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:31:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',861,'AAALu3///gc='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:31:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',861,'AAALu3///gg='),(46,'2010-06-15 08:11:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',861,'AAALu3///hc='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:35:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',862,'AAALu3///gE='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:35:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',862,'AAALu3///gI='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:36:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',863,'AAALu3///f4='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:36:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',863,'AAALu3///f8='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:36:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',864,'AAALu3///fs='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:36:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',864,'AAALu3///fw='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:37:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',865,'AAALu3///fk='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:37:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',865,'AAALu3///fo='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:38:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',866,'AAALu3///fc='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:38:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems fine.',866,'AAALu3///fg='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:39:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',867,'AAALu3///fQ='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:39:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',867,'AAALu3///fU='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:39:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',868,'AAALu3///fM='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:34:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',868,'AAALu3///gQ='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:39:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',869,'AAALu3///fA='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:39:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',869,'AAALu3///fI='),(46,'2010-06-15 08:09:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',869,'AAALu3///hg='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:39:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',870,'AAALu3///fE='),(2,'2010-06-15 15:34:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI generally dislike nested classes, however making them static is right here. In the future, we should consider refactoring out label providers into a shared and global one. I have opened bug 316929 to track this enhancement.',870,'AAALu3///gU='),(46,'2010-06-15 08:08:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',870,'AAALu3///hk='),(1,'2010-06-17 14:09:33','Patch Set 1:\n\nPlease remove that blank line between Bug and Signed-off-by.  Its preventing Gerrit from seeing the Bug: 316761 line as a footer, which means it won\'t index this change as a fix for 316761... and we can\'t later search Gerrit for changes related to bug 316761 with the search string \"bug:316761\".  :-)',871,'AAALv3///9Y='),(4,'2010-06-16 21:59:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',871,'AAALvX////0='),(2,'2010-06-18 00:05:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',871,'AAALwH////0='),(2,'2010-06-18 00:05:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, thanks.',871,'AAALwH////4='),(2,'2010-06-18 00:04:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',871,'AAALwH////8='),(4,'2010-06-17 11:26:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',872,'AAALv3///90='),(4,'2010-06-17 11:28:27','Patch Set 2:\n\n- rebased onto current master\n- I once hit the following exception when saving changed git preferences, maybe this is an interference with asynchronous refresh job run by repositories view :\n\njava.util.ConcurrentModificationException\nat java.util.HashMap$HashIterator.nextEntry(HashMap.java:793)\nat java.util.HashMap$KeyIterator.next(HashMap.java:828)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.repository.RepositoriesView.unregisterRepositoryListener(RepositoriesView.java:435)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.repository.RepositoriesView.access$5(RepositoriesView.java:434)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.repository.RepositoriesView$6.run(RepositoriesView.java:359)\nat org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run(Worker.java:54)',872,'AAALv3///9w='),(4,'2010-06-21 21:52:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',872,'AAALwH///2k='),(4,'2010-06-21 21:52:31','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',872,'AAALwH///2o='),(4,'2010-06-21 21:51:44','Uploaded patch set 4.',872,'AAALwH///2s='),(46,'2010-06-21 12:21:46','Uploaded patch set 3.',872,'AAALwH///3c='),(46,'2010-06-21 12:23:27','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebased on master. I couldn\'t reproduce the ConcurrentModificationException with this. I can hardly imagine that this change can be the reason for it, as this change is dealing with the Eclipse Preferences, not Git configuration handling.',872,'AAALwH///3Y='),(4,'2010-06-18 22:44:50','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nplease check for interference with the mentioned refresh job',872,'AAALwH///9Y='),(4,'2010-06-16 14:29:36','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nrebased\n\nneeds CQ hence marked unclean IP',873,'AAALu3///aA='),(4,'2010-06-16 14:28:54','Uploaded patch set 5.',873,'AAALu3///aI='),(4,'2010-06-16 12:33:37','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n- added missing import for @RunWith annotation\n- made EGitTestCase abstract to fix\njava.lang.Exception: No runnable methods\n        at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.validateInstanceMethods(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:171)\n\n- this change needs a CQ hence marked unclean IP',873,'AAALu3///ao='),(4,'2010-06-16 12:30:02','Uploaded patch set 4.',873,'AAALu3///as='),(49,'2010-06-16 07:28:20','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nI have had some problems with running tests from maven (maven was unable to resolve one of dependency of SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner class). In this case i have hope that this change fix problem that you mentioned.\n\nI\'ve also update two patch sets depends on this one.',873,'AAALu3///bQ='),(49,'2010-06-16 07:23:27','Uploaded patch set 3.',873,'AAALu3///bY='),(4,'2010-06-15 23:53:31','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nrebased to current master to make it runnable from maven\n\nWhen running the ui tests from maven, I hit the following error:\n\n-------------------------------------------------------\n T E S T S\n-------------------------------------------------------\nRunning org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest\nlog4j:WARN No appenders could be found for logger (org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.matchers.AbstractMatcher).\nlog4j:WARN Please initialize the log4j system properly.\nTests run: 5, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 89.407 sec\nRunning org.eclipse.egit.ui.common.EGitTestCase\nTests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0 sec <<< FAILURE!\ninitializationError(org.eclipse.egit.ui.common.EGitTestCase)  Time elapsed: 0 sec  <<< ERROR!\njava.lang.Exception: No runnable methods\n        at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.validateInstanceMethods(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:171)\n        at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.collectInitializationErrors(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:115)\n        at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.validate(ParentRunner.java:269)\n        at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.<init>(ParentRunner.java:66)\n        at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.<init>(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:59)\n        at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.<init>(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:46)\n        at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method)\n        at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:39)\n        at sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:27)\n        at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513)\n        at org.junit.internal.builders.AnnotatedBuilder.buildRunner(AnnotatedBuilder.java:31)\n        at org.junit.internal.builders.AnnotatedBuilder.runnerForClass(AnnotatedBuilder.java:24)\n        at org.junit.runners.model.RunnerBuilder.safeRunnerForClass(RunnerBuilder.java:57)\n        at org.junit.internal.builders.AllDefaultPossibilitiesBuilder.runnerForClass(AllDefaultPossibilitiesBuilder.java:29)\n        at org.junit.runners.model.RunnerBuilder.safeRunnerForClass(RunnerBuilder.java:57)\n        at org.junit.internal.requests.ClassRequest.getRunner(ClassRequest.java:24)\n        at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4TestSet.<init>(JUnit4TestSet.java:45)\n        at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4DirectoryTestSuite.createTestSet(JUnit4DirectoryTestSuite.java:56)\n        at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.locateTestSets(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:96)\n        at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.createSuiteFromDefinition(Surefire.java:209)\n        at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:156)\n        at org.codehaus.tycho.surefire.osgibooter.OsgiSurefireBooter.run(OsgiSurefireBooter.java:75)\n        at org.codehaus.tycho.surefire.osgibooter.AbstractUITestApplication.runTests(AbstractUITestApplication.java:34)\n        at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619)\n\nRunning org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.share.SharingWizardTest\nTests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 6.5 sec\n\nResults :\n\nTests in error:\n  initializationError(org.eclipse.egit.ui.common.EGitTestCase)\n\nTests run: 7, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0',873,'AAALu3///cE='),(4,'2010-06-15 23:51:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',873,'AAALu3///cI='),(4,'2010-06-16 15:01:47','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nprevious rebase was wrong\nneeds CQ',873,'AAALu3///Zo='),(4,'2010-06-16 15:00:21','Uploaded patch set 6.',873,'AAALu3///Zw='),(2,'2010-06-17 16:52:43','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1',873,'AAALv3///84='),(4,'2010-06-18 09:38:24','Patch Set 8:\n\nadded CQ footer',873,'AAALwH////A='),(4,'2010-06-18 09:37:37','Uploaded patch set 8.',873,'AAALwH////E='),(49,'2010-06-18 00:44:34','Patch Set 7:\n\nRebased',873,'AAALwH////Q='),(49,'2010-06-18 00:44:04','Uploaded patch set 7.',873,'AAALwH////U='),(4,'2010-06-18 13:30:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',873,'AAALwH///+k='),(4,'2010-06-18 13:30:01','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCQ 4270 has been approved.',873,'AAALwH///+o='),(4,'2010-06-16 14:28:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',874,'AAALu3///aE='),(49,'2010-06-16 07:23:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',874,'AAALu3///bU='),(8,'2010-06-16 21:04:13','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',874,'AAALu3///Ys='),(4,'2010-06-16 14:35:34','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- rebased\n- test is failing :\n\nRunning org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitSyncInfoTest\nTests run: 18, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 12.391 sec <<< FAILURE!\nshouldReturnOutgoingAddition(org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitSyncInfoTest)  Time elapsed: 0.281 sec  <<< FAILURE!\njava.lang.AssertionError:\n  Expectation failure on verify:\n    getName(): expected: 27, actual: 1\n        at org.easymock.internal.MocksControl.verify(MocksControl.java:101)\n        at org.easymock.EasyMock.verify(EasyMock.java:1570)\n        at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitSyncInfoTest.shouldReturnOutgoingAddition(GitSyncInfoTest.java:392)\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.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n        at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4TestSet.execute(JUnit4TestSet.java:62)\n        at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:140)\n        at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:127)\n        at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:177)\n        at org.codehaus.tycho.surefire.osgibooter.OsgiSurefireBooter.run(OsgiSurefireBooter.java:75)\n        at org.codehaus.tycho.surefire.osgibooter.AbstractUITestApplication$1.run(AbstractUITestApplication.java:25)\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:4041)\n        at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3660)\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.codehaus.tycho.surefire.osgibooter.UITestApplication.runApplication(UITestApplication.java:21)\n        at org.codehaus.tycho.surefire.osgibooter.AbstractUITestApplication.run(AbstractUITestApplication.java:109)\n        at org.codehaus.tycho.surefire.osgibooter.UITestApplication.start(UITestApplication.java:27)\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)',874,'AAALu3///Z4='),(49,'2010-06-16 15:14:24','Patch Set 5: No score\n\nFixed test fest failure.\n\nI have still some problems with running maven build from command line, so that I can\'t test it from cmd. In my eclipse previous version forks fine ...',874,'AAALu3///Zg='),(49,'2010-06-16 15:12:12','Uploaded patch set 5.',874,'AAALu3///Zk='),(49,'2010-06-16 18:46:30','Patch Set 5:\n\nEasyMock is added as a plugin dependency (see org.eclipse.egit.core/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF) and it should be provided.\n\nMaven build starts with yours command and fails on one of tests. This a good point to start debug it ;)',874,'AAALu3///ZQ='),(4,'2010-06-16 15:00:21','Uploaded patch set 4.',874,'AAALu3///Zs='),(4,'2010-06-16 15:45:40','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nWhere is easymock coming from ? Maybe another dependency is needed here ?\n\nFor me the mentioned test is also failing from Eclipse. I am running on latest Helios on Windows XP. I run the tests from maven also against helios :\n\n$ mvn clean install -Dplatform-version-name=helios',874,'AAALu3///ZY='),(4,'2010-06-17 12:04:11','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n--------------------\nUI tests:\n\nno coverage on GitSynchronizeWizard and GitSynchronizeWizardPage\n\nsynchronize ui test hangs when started from maven (on Windows XP)\n\nfailure when run from eclipse:\n\njava.lang.AssertionError: expected:<0> but was:<8>\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.views.synchronize.SynchronizeViewTest.shouldReturnNoChanges(SynchronizeViewTest.java:69)\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.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:619)\n\n--------------------\ncore tests:\n\nno coverage on GitResourceVariantTree\n\nfailures both when run from eclipse or maven (maybe this is a problem only on windows filesystem,\nin windows you can\'t delete files which are in use)\n\njava.io.IOException: C:\\test\\junit-workspace\\.git\\logs\\refs\\heads in use or undeletable\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestUtils.rmrf(TestUtils.java:37)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestUtils.rmrf(TestUtils.java:31)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestUtils.rmrf(TestUtils.java:31)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestUtils.rmrf(TestUtils.java:31)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.GitTestCase.tearDown(GitTestCase.java:52)\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.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:37)\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.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.pde.internal.junit.runtime.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:62)\n	at org.eclipse.pde.internal.junit.runtime.UITestApplication$1.run(UITestApplication.java:116)\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:4041)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3660)\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.pde.internal.junit.runtime.UITestApplication.start(UITestApplication.java:47)\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)\n\n\njava.io.IOException: C:\\test\\junit-workspace\\.git\\logs\\refs\\heads in use or undeletable\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestUtils.rmrf(TestUtils.java:37)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestUtils.rmrf(TestUtils.java:31)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestUtils.rmrf(TestUtils.java:31)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestUtils.rmrf(TestUtils.java:31)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.GitTestCase.tearDown(GitTestCase.java:52)\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.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:37)\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.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.pde.internal.junit.runtime.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:62)\n	at org.eclipse.pde.internal.junit.runtime.UITestApplication$1.run(UITestApplication.java:116)\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:4041)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3660)\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.pde.internal.junit.runtime.UITestApplication.start(UITestApplication.java:47)\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)',874,'AAALv3///9s='),(4,'2010-06-17 14:37:06','Patch Set 6:\n\n- CQ 4275 for usage of easymock has been approved\n- we will need another CQ for IP review of this change',874,'AAALv3///9U='),(49,'2010-06-16 21:23:39','Patch Set 5: (4 inline comments)\n\nCurrently tests fails in WorkingCopyPage.assertWorkingCopyExists() (line 53) because STWBot can not find Text widget with specified text message.',874,'AAALvH////8='),(4,'2010-06-16 21:57:48','Patch Set 5: Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nFiled CQ https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4275 for reuse of easymock, we will also need a CQ for this patch.',874,'AAALvX////4='),(49,'2010-06-16 22:13:29','Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)\n\nI\'ve add a CQ statement into commit message, it will be updated with next patch set.',874,'AAALvX///+0='),(49,'2010-06-16 22:37:10','Patch Set 6:\n\nNow all test should pass. I\'ve run egit build from command line four times and in all cases all tests was green ;)',874,'AAALvX///9s='),(49,'2010-06-16 22:35:17','Uploaded patch set 6.',874,'AAALvX///9w='),(49,'2010-06-18 22:11:17','Patch Set 6:\n\n> no coverage on GitSynchronizeWizard and GitSynchronizeWizardPage\n\nI\'ll add it after I fix issues in current test set\n\n> java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<0> but was:<8>\n\nThis should never happen! Maybe on Windows we show files that should be ignored ... currently I don\'t bloody idea how this can happen.\n\n> java.io.IOException: C:\\test\\junit-workspace\\.git\\logs\\refs\\heads in use or undeletable\n\nThis should be investigated, we should free resources before we\'ll delete it. It seams that I should install Windows and run tests also under this platform ...\n\nAdditionally on my Linux GitRepositoriesViewTest always fails with NPE listed in Error view:\nCaused by: java.lang.NullPointerException\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.clone.GitSelectRepositoryPage.checkPage(GitSelectRepositoryPage.java:179)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.clone.GitSelectRepositoryPage.access$2(GitSelectRepositoryPage.java:176)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.clone.GitSelectRepositoryPage$1.widgetSelected(GitSelectRepositoryPage.java:128)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.TypedListener.handleEvent(TypedListener.java:234)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.EventTable.sendEvent(EventTable.java:84)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1258)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1282)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1267)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.notifyListeners(Widget.java:1061)\nat org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBot$2.run(AbstractSWTBot.java:159)\nat org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.finders.UIThreadRunnable$5.doRun(UIThreadRunnable.java:221)\nat org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.finders.UIThreadRunnable$1.run(UIThreadRunnable.java:89)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.RunnableLock.run(RunnableLock.java:35)\nat org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Synchronizer.runAsyncMessages(Synchronizer.java:134)\n... 51 more',874,'AAALwH///+I='),(49,'2010-06-21 23:38:57','Patch Set 9:\n\nRebased depend patch set and fixed issues with proper project initialization in test cases after merging change #909 (all projects should be connected with proper repository so that we can obtain instance of RepositoryMapping class based on specific IResource instance).',874,'AAALwH///14='),(49,'2010-06-21 23:34:41','Uploaded patch set 9.',874,'AAALwH///2A='),(4,'2010-06-21 22:40:24','Patch Set 8:\n\nCould you rebase this change and the underlying http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,911 onto current master ? \nI tried to do that but probably I did something wrong because I hit tons of NPEs in synchronize tests when running egit.core tests so I suspect I somehow killed change 911.',874,'AAALwH///2I='),(49,'2010-06-21 22:12:23','Patch Set 8:\n\nI\'ve added test case for GitResourceVariantTree class. Three (shouldReturnTwoMembers, shouldReturnSameResourceVariant, shouldReturnDifferentResourceVariant) of theres tests fails when they are run together with others, but passes when they are run separately. It look like jgit cant obtain blob object with is needed by test case when this particular test cases re run as a part of whole test run.',874,'AAALwH///2M='),(49,'2010-06-21 22:06:30','Uploaded patch set 8.',874,'AAALwH///2U='),(49,'2010-06-19 23:56:18','Patch Set 7: (6 inline comments)\n\n',874,'AAALwH///5A='),(49,'2010-06-19 23:33:16','Patch Set 7:\n\nI think that in next two days I\'ll add tests for:\n* GitResourceVariantTree\n* GitSynchronizeWizard\n* GitSynchronizeWizardPage\n\nBug 317371 needs more investigation from my side. I is possible that this is a know bug, since resource that are committed from Synchronization View doesn\'t immediately disappear form view. I\'ll investigate that and of course send a patch with fix for this issue ;)',874,'AAALwH///5c='),(4,'2010-06-19 22:57:33','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',874,'AAALwH///6U='),(4,'2010-06-19 22:57:16','Patch Set 7: (6 inline comments)\n\n- good, all tests are passing now\n- some style nits and typos found\n- some tests must be wrong or missing see bug 317371\n- I\'ll try to understand the tests in detail soon',874,'AAALwH///6Y='),(49,'2010-06-19 13:16:45','Patch Set 6:\n\nFirst issue (this where assert fails) is connected with different patch for local file in GitSyncInfo on Windows and Linux. I\'ll fix it and push new patch set with this change.',874,'AAALwH///70='),(49,'2010-06-19 16:21:03','Uploaded patch set 7.',874,'AAALwH///7c='),(49,'2010-06-19 16:24:18','Patch Set 7:\n\nRebases on top of change I169d38c3. This change should fix SynchronizeViewTest.shouldReturnNoChanges() on Windows platform.',874,'AAALwH///7Y='),(49,'2010-06-22 20:46:57','Uploaded patch set 10.',874,'AAALwX////4='),(4,'2010-06-25 23:41:15','Uploaded patch set 14.',874,'AAALwX///1c='),(4,'2010-06-25 23:05:20','Uploaded patch set 13.',874,'AAALwX///1g='),(4,'2010-06-26 00:13:10','Patch Set 15: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n- rebased to current master and resolved conflict\n- made comments javadoc comments\n\nThis change is waiting for approval of CQ4291',874,'AAALwX///1U='),(4,'2010-06-25 23:42:30','Uploaded patch set 15.',874,'AAALwX///1Y='),(49,'2010-06-25 01:36:50','Uploaded patch set 12.',874,'AAALwX///4k='),(49,'2010-06-24 18:52:35','Patch Set 11:\n\nI\'ve added comments for rests so that they can be easier to understand.',874,'AAALwX///5s='),(49,'2010-06-24 18:51:15','Uploaded patch set 11.',874,'AAALwX///5w='),(4,'2010-06-30 14:15:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',874,'AAALwX///tk='),(4,'2010-06-30 14:15:04','Patch Set 16: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- CQ4291 has been approved\n- rebased and resolved trivial conflict',874,'AAALwX///to='),(4,'2010-06-30 14:14:13','Uploaded patch set 16.',874,'AAALwX///ts='),(4,'2010-06-15 23:19:01','Patch Set 1:\n\nyes, stable-0.8 has the same mess, I don\'t know why this didn\'t break the build.',875,'AAALu3///ck='),(1,'2010-06-15 23:15:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; No score\n\nUh, wow.  How did that happen?  Did we ship 0.8.4 with that mess?',875,'AAALu3///co='),(4,'2010-06-15 23:40:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',875,'AAALu3///cQ='),(4,'2010-06-15 23:15:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nIt\'s a miracle to me how this could ever build correctly ??',875,'AAALu3///cs='),(1,'2010-06-15 23:31:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\nYes.  tools/version.sh doesn\'t know to do this replace.  I\'m pretty certain of it.  So we should also fix that.',876,'AAALu3///cc='),(4,'2010-06-15 23:28:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\ndoes this point to a gap in tools/version.sh ?',876,'AAALu3///cg='),(4,'2010-06-15 23:40:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',876,'AAALu3///cM='),(4,'2010-06-16 09:25:55','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',877,'AAALu3///a0='),(4,'2010-06-16 09:25:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',877,'AAALu3///a4='),(4,'2010-06-16 09:25:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',877,'AAALu3///aw='),(4,'2010-06-16 12:54:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',878,'AAALu3///ac='),(4,'2010-06-16 12:54:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed typos in commit message',878,'AAALu3///ag='),(4,'2010-06-16 12:54:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',878,'AAALu3///ak='),(4,'2010-06-16 13:00:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',879,'AAALu3///aQ='),(4,'2010-06-16 13:00:30','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',879,'AAALu3///aU='),(4,'2010-06-16 13:00:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',879,'AAALu3///aY='),(1,'2010-06-16 23:11:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',880,'AAALvn////E='),(1,'2010-06-16 23:11:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI adjusted the commit message to be a bit more in the project\'s style, and cherry-picked this onto current master.  Otherwise, thanks!',880,'AAALvn////I='),(1,'2010-06-16 23:10:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',880,'AAALvn////M='),(4,'2010-06-16 23:23:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',881,'AAALv3////4='),(46,'2010-06-17 05:46:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',881,'AAALv3////M='),(46,'2010-06-17 05:46:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',881,'AAALv3////Q='),(1,'2010-06-16 23:39:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\nSorry I forgot to do it here in EGit.',882,'AAALv3////0='),(1,'2010-06-17 02:35:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',882,'AAALv3////k='),(1,'2010-06-17 02:35:12','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',882,'AAALv3////o='),(3,'2010-06-17 01:35:46','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWill push this tomorrow as part of the EGit demo',883,'AAALv3////w='),(1,'2010-06-22 22:59:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',884,'AAALwX////w='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:35:40','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',884,'AAALwX///64='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:33:46','Uploaded patch set 3.',884,'AAALwX///7M='),(8,'2010-07-01 22:00:07','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',884,'AAALwX///lU='),(1,'2010-06-29 21:06:04','Patch Set 3:\n\nRegarding \'who to get when\':  That is the Git data model.  Timestamps are stored as part of an identity.  The identity is (partially) optional.  If you want the time of a commit, you need to also specify from whose perspective you want the time:  the author, or the committer, because they can differ by quite a bit.  Consequently we just expose it through the identity.',884,'AAALwX///w0='),(3,'2010-06-29 20:06:14','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nSeems a bit odd that we need a \'who\' to work out \'when\' ...',884,'AAALwX///xI='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:12:00','Change has been successfully pushed.',884,'AAALxH///40='),(1,'2010-06-22 22:59:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',885,'AAALwX////0='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:38:00','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',885,'AAALwX///6k='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:33:46','Uploaded patch set 3.',885,'AAALwX///7Q='),(8,'2010-07-01 22:11:29','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',885,'AAALwX///lE='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:54:07','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',885,'AAALwX///rg='),(3,'2010-06-30 08:55:34','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nSeems this change is independent of the other ones in the series and could be applied at any time. (Just an observation, not a suggestion)',885,'AAALwX///vU='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:59','Change has been successfully pushed.',885,'AAALxH///5E='),(1,'2010-06-19 04:17:47','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBeing split apart and replaced by other changes.',886,'AAALwH///8A='),(1,'2010-06-19 00:14:24','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nSuperceeded by the work in I1bd54ea0500337799a8e792874c272eb14d555f7',886,'AAALwH///8I='),(1,'2010-06-19 00:25:02','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWe\'re not going to use GitRepository as a class name.',887,'AAALwH///8E='),(4,'2010-06-17 13:03:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nrebased and resolved conflict',888,'AAALv3///9c='),(4,'2010-06-17 13:02:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',888,'AAALv3///9g='),(NULL,'2010-06-17 12:20:39','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.',888,'AAALv3///9k='),(2,'2010-06-17 14:51:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',888,'AAALv3///9M='),(2,'2010-06-17 12:20:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',888,'AAALv3///9o='),(2,'2010-06-17 14:51:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, thanks.',888,'AAALv3///9Q='),(4,'2010-06-21 21:56:13','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',889,'AAALwH///2c='),(4,'2010-06-21 21:55:34','Uploaded patch set 4.',889,'AAALwH///2g='),(4,'2010-06-21 21:56:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',889,'AAALwH///2Y='),(4,'2010-06-18 23:42:52','Patch Set 3:\n\nChris: could you grant PMC approval for this change ?',889,'AAALwH///84='),(4,'2010-06-18 23:40:28','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n- rebased\n- added missing license header\n- fixed some style nits\n- needs PMC approval',889,'AAALwH///88='),(2,'2010-06-18 23:53:43','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1 from Tech PMC',889,'AAALwH///8k='),(4,'2010-06-18 23:38:50','Uploaded patch set 3.',889,'AAALwH///9A='),(4,'2010-06-18 23:32:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',889,'AAALwH///9E='),(1,'2010-06-18 01:43:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI think this is all we need to do the rename.  I\'ve tried to keep the patch as small as possible, but still tried to move the bulk of the \"local file storage\" related code into the new storage.file package.\n\nI figure we will submit this, and then start following up with commits to extract up into a common lib.Repository base class, as well as clean up some of the nastier parts, like having exposed PackedObjectLoader and WholePackedObjectLoader so that PackWriter would be happy.\n\nSee also I2459757a26f8c724b95468f9f38bac2ee172a932, the matching change in EGit.',890,'AAALwH////M='),(4,'2010-06-18 18:34:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nIt looks strange that a lot of public API methods expose FileRepository in their parameter lists. This implies we have to break the API again when a Repository interface is extracted which would shield applications from the details of the chosen storage implementation. So as Robin suggested I would also tend to first extract the interface and then later rename the current file based storage implementation. This further refactoring would then mainly affect jgit implementation and hopefully not or only minimally the application coding.',890,'AAALwH///+M='),(8,'2010-06-18 12:18:23','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nYou should refactor the Repository API first. Most of the other functions now changed don\'t need a FileRepository.\n\n1. Extract a prelimninary Repository API into an interface\n2. Rename the impleementation class\n3. Clean up API. This probably takes more than one step to get it right.',890,'AAALwH///+w='),(4,'2010-06-19 13:05:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',890,'AAALwH///74='),(1,'2010-06-19 00:13:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nSplitting up Repository into its generic form and its concrete file based form is harder than it sounds.\n\nI think the easiest approach is to do this step first.  Get the API split into abstract and concrete, then refine from there.\n\nMoving lib.FileRepository to storage.file.FileRepository is a disaster.  We run into all sorts of package visibility issues.  I\'d like to do it in smaller increments, after this initial split is done.\n\nThis means we\'ll be breaking our public API at least twice during the 0.9 development cycle, but both times the breakage is mostly limited to the construction of the FileRepository... and the second breakage is just an import statement edit (s/.lib.FileRepository/.storage.file.FileRepository/) and updating META-INF/MANIFEST.MF to export/import that package, and its mostly a mechanical change.',890,'AAALwH///8Q='),(1,'2010-06-19 00:09:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',890,'AAALwH///8Y='),(1,'2010-06-22 22:59:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',890,'AAALwX////g='),(1,'2010-06-22 23:02:30','Uploaded patch set 4.',890,'AAALwX////M='),(1,'2010-06-23 00:19:04','Uploaded patch set 5.',890,'AAALwX///+s='),(1,'2010-06-27 01:52:37','Uploaded patch set 6.',890,'AAALwX///1I='),(1,'2010-07-02 00:04:53','Patch Set 6: (1 inline comment)\n\n',890,'AAALwX///h0='),(8,'2010-07-01 23:17:49','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',890,'AAALwX///jQ='),(1,'2010-07-01 18:35:32','Patch Set 6: (1 inline comment)\n\n',890,'AAALwX///m8='),(3,'2010-07-01 11:21:04','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',890,'AAALwX///oM='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:55','Change has been successfully pushed.',890,'AAALxH///54='),(6,'2010-07-20 13:54:58','Patch Set 6:\n\nSomehow we missed to commit that change. Now there are many conflicting changes in master.\n\nI tried to rebase but I had too many conflicts so I just would like to ask if I should go on with it or if you have other plans.',891,'AAALw3///74='),(1,'2010-06-18 01:43:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',891,'AAALwH////I='),(8,'2010-06-18 12:35:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nSee the corresponding JGit patch',891,'AAALwH///+s='),(4,'2010-06-19 13:44:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',891,'AAALwH///7w='),(1,'2010-06-19 00:14:01','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',891,'AAALwH///8M='),(1,'2010-06-19 00:09:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',891,'AAALwH///8U='),(1,'2010-07-02 22:51:28','Uploaded patch set 6.',891,'AAALwX///bI='),(4,'2010-07-02 22:45:29','Patch Set 5:\n\nMaybe it would be a good idea to mention in the commit message which JGit API changes this change is adapting to.',891,'AAALwX///bo='),(1,'2010-07-02 22:15:30','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis isn\'t rebased to current master, and has some merge conflicts now.  But its mostly updated to use the streaming API where it was obvious that we should stream a blob.',891,'AAALwX///dI='),(1,'2010-07-02 22:14:31','Uploaded patch set 5.',891,'AAALwX///dU='),(1,'2010-07-01 01:56:50','Uploaded patch set 4.',891,'AAALwX///p8='),(1,'2010-07-01 00:52:35','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\negit.core.test passes :-)',891,'AAALwX///qI='),(1,'2010-07-01 00:51:31','Uploaded patch set 3.',891,'AAALwX///qM='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:08:32','Uploaded patch set 7.',891,'AAALxH////Y='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:12:09','Change has been successfully pushed.',891,'AAALxH///4k='),(4,'2010-06-21 21:41:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',892,'AAALwH///20='),(4,'2010-06-21 21:41:17','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',892,'AAALwH///24='),(4,'2010-06-21 21:38:22','Uploaded patch set 4.',892,'AAALwH///28='),(46,'2010-06-21 11:54:51','Uploaded patch set 3.',892,'AAALwH///3o='),(4,'2010-06-19 00:03:19','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- rebased to current master\n- added missing license headers\n- fixed typo\n\nIf many configuration parameters are defined the edit fields and buttons are only reachable after scrolling down. Only the parameter list should scroll and the edit area should be always visible. Also some tests could be added. \n\nWould be nice to have a list of standard parameters at hand, maybe we could add value help and/or context sensitive help in another subsequent change.',892,'AAALwH///8c='),(4,'2010-06-18 23:58:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',892,'AAALwH///8g='),(4,'2010-06-18 23:49:35','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',892,'AAALwH///8o='),(46,'2010-06-29 10:57:11','Patch Set 4:\n\nOops... Uploaded http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,998 with a fix.',892,'AAALwX///yg='),(8,'2010-06-29 09:11:01','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\nIt is advisable to configure Eclipse to use 1.5 when developing the JGit and EGit plugins.',892,'AAALwX///yk='),(8,'2010-06-18 10:44:49','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',893,'AAALwH///+0='),(2,'2010-06-21 21:47:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',893,'AAALwH///2w='),(4,'2010-06-18 22:17:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',893,'AAALwH///9s='),(NULL,'2010-06-22 01:20:55','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* Icf379e126e5c9d29af70b5e2110377e43ba22430\n',893,'AAALwX////8='),(NULL,'2010-06-23 14:50:39','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///+M='),(NULL,'2010-06-25 13:34:06','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///2w='),(NULL,'2010-06-25 11:26:00','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///3E='),(NULL,'2010-06-25 06:00:32','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///4c='),(NULL,'2010-06-25 06:15:32','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///4E='),(NULL,'2010-06-24 18:05:28','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///58='),(NULL,'2010-06-24 05:38:20','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///6c='),(6,'2010-06-30 10:55:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',893,'AAALwX///u0='),(6,'2010-06-30 10:59:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',893,'AAALwX///uk='),(6,'2010-06-30 10:59:33','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',893,'AAALwX///uo='),(6,'2010-06-30 10:59:08','Uploaded patch set 3.',893,'AAALwX///us='),(NULL,'2010-06-30 10:55:49','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.',893,'AAALwX///uw='),(NULL,'2010-06-30 00:36:40','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///v4='),(8,'2010-06-30 10:41:02','Patch Set 2:\n\nNow without the dependency',893,'AAALwX///vA='),(8,'2010-06-30 10:37:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',893,'AAALwX///vE='),(NULL,'2010-06-30 08:07:30','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///vs='),(NULL,'2010-06-29 23:58:16','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///wc='),(NULL,'2010-06-29 14:16:27','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.',893,'AAALwX///x0='),(46,'2010-06-21 06:09:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',894,'AAALwH///30='),(4,'2010-06-21 15:33:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',894,'AAALwH///3A='),(4,'2010-06-21 15:33:16','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',894,'AAALwH///3E='),(4,'2010-06-21 15:32:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',894,'AAALwH///3I='),(4,'2010-06-19 14:29:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- clone jgit repository with all branches\n- select remote branch stable-0.7\n- \"Create Branch\"\n- all fields of the dialog get good values (new local branch has by default the name \"stable-0.7\"\n- but the finish button is not enabled\n- when checking and unchecking the \"Checkout\" checkbox the finish button gets enabled',894,'AAALwH///7s='),(4,'2010-06-19 14:38:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',895,'AAALwH///7g='),(4,'2010-06-19 14:38:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed style nit',895,'AAALwH///7k='),(4,'2010-06-19 14:37:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',895,'AAALwH///7o='),(46,'2010-06-18 14:50:47','Uploaded patch set 2.',896,'AAALwH///+g='),(4,'2010-06-20 22:24:55','Patch Set 2:\n\ndoes this change replace http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,614 ?',896,'AAALwH///38='),(46,'2010-06-21 12:10:49','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nChange 614 was meant indeed.',896,'AAALwH///3g='),(32,'2010-06-18 15:44:07','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nCommit-ID not installed correctly',897,'AAALwH///+Y='),(1,'2010-06-18 22:14:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',898,'AAALwH///+A='),(1,'2010-06-18 22:14:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',898,'AAALwH///+E='),(1,'2010-06-18 22:15:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',899,'AAALwH///90='),(1,'2010-06-18 22:15:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',899,'AAALwH///9w='),(1,'2010-06-18 22:15:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',900,'AAALwH///94='),(1,'2010-06-18 22:15:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',900,'AAALwH///98='),(1,'2010-06-18 22:18:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',901,'AAALwH///9k='),(1,'2010-06-18 22:18:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',901,'AAALwH///9o='),(1,'2010-06-18 23:11:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',902,'AAALwH///9Q='),(1,'2010-06-18 23:11:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',902,'AAALwH///9U='),(1,'2010-06-18 23:12:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',903,'AAALwH///9I='),(1,'2010-06-18 23:12:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',903,'AAALwH///9M='),(49,'2010-06-19 22:31:39','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',904,'AAALwH///60='),(4,'2010-06-19 22:58:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',904,'AAALwH///6M='),(4,'2010-06-19 22:58:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',904,'AAALwH///6Q='),(49,'2010-06-19 22:30:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',904,'AAALwH///7E='),(4,'2010-06-19 22:26:28','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nsome typos and style nits',904,'AAALwH///7I='),(4,'2010-06-20 21:18:19','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- removed unnecessary comment\n- fixed style nit',905,'AAALwH///40='),(4,'2010-06-20 21:16:36','Uploaded patch set 3.',905,'AAALwH///44='),(4,'2010-06-20 21:18:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',905,'AAALwH///4w='),(4,'2010-06-19 23:09:06','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nThe commit message should not explain what you are doing but why you are doing this change. The what is in the diff ...\n\nSo I would write something like:\n\nFix NPE when deleting project used in Synchronize View\n\nNPE is hit when user deletes project that currently is used in Sychronize View.',905,'AAALwH///54='),(49,'2010-06-19 23:22:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',905,'AAALwH///5g='),(49,'2010-06-19 23:21:23','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\nI\'ll push updated patch in a moment.',905,'AAALwH///5k='),(4,'2010-06-20 21:32:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',906,'AAALwH///4k='),(4,'2010-06-20 21:32:04','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- improved commit message',906,'AAALwH///4o='),(4,'2010-06-20 21:31:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',906,'AAALwH///4s='),(4,'2010-06-20 22:03:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',907,'AAALwH///4E='),(4,'2010-06-20 22:03:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',907,'AAALwH///4I='),(4,'2010-06-20 22:03:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',907,'AAALwH///4M='),(3,'2010-06-20 23:16:51','Patch Set 1:\n\nI put the comments in bug 317376 (should have added that to the commit)\n\nhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=317376\n\nSteps to Reproduce:\nopen a resource under EGit control\nGo to \'history\' view\nSelect two resources\nSelect \'compare with each other\'\nNote the title of the compare page is the name of the resource + full commit\nreference for the two trees\n\nPerhaps this needs to be changed in multiple places?',908,'AAALwH///34='),(4,'2010-06-20 22:23:41','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nSomehow this doesn\'t work (or I look in the wrong place):\n- modify a tracked file and save it\n- \"Compare With\" > \"HEAD revision\" -> full SHA1 shown\n- Select version in History View and \"Compare with Working Tree\" -> full SHA1 shown\n- Select two versions in History View and \"Compare with each other\" -> full SHA1 shown\n\nAfter the header line of your commit message there are 2 blank lines. One would be sufficient.',908,'AAALwH///4A='),(6,'2010-06-23 13:14:23','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- StringIndexOutOfBoundsException when I select \"Compare With -> Git Index\" in package Explorer. In this case the String \"Index\" is truncated.\n\n- When I select \"Compare with Working Tree\" in History View or \"Compare With HEAD revision\" in package explorer the editor tab contains \"Current..\" instead of \"Current\"\n\nMaybe the truncation method should check if the revision String is a SHA-1 or not.',908,'AAALwX///+U='),(3,'2010-06-25 08:32:20','Patch Set 1:\n\nWe should certainly check that the string is a long one before truncating. If it were longer than 10 chars that would probably do it.',908,'AAALwX///3o='),(3,'2010-06-25 08:29:20','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',908,'AAALwX///3s='),(49,'2010-06-20 18:30:06','Patch Set 1:\n\nShould I report a bug for this improvement ?',909,'AAALwH///48='),(4,'2010-06-20 21:52:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',909,'AAALwH///4c='),(4,'2010-06-20 21:54:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',909,'AAALwH///4Q='),(4,'2010-06-20 21:54:44','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- fixed typo\n- improved commit message',909,'AAALwH///4U='),(4,'2010-06-20 21:54:27','Uploaded patch set 3.',909,'AAALwH///4Y='),(3,'2010-06-21 08:39:42','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nEGit needs to be able to handle rsync/scp-like protocols of user@host:path/to/repo as well as URLs like ssh://user@host/path/to/repo',910,'AAALwH///3s='),(5,'2010-06-21 07:17:16','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThese URLs are not github specific. We should support them in general, not just for github. See http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-push.html#URLS',910,'AAALwH///3w='),(49,'2010-06-21 23:35:40','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased',911,'AAALwH///18='),(49,'2010-06-21 23:34:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',911,'AAALwH///2E='),(4,'2010-06-23 14:50:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',911,'AAALwX///+I='),(4,'2010-06-23 14:50:39','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',911,'AAALwX///+Q='),(4,'2010-06-23 15:25:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',912,'AAALwX///+A='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:58:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',912,'AAALwX///8o='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',912,'AAALwX///8Q='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased after being +1 by Matthias',912,'AAALwX///8U='),(1,'2010-06-22 23:02:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',913,'AAALwX///+8='),(1,'2010-06-23 00:19:06','Uploaded patch set 3.',913,'AAALwX///+c='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:35:40','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',913,'AAALwX///7A='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:33:46','Uploaded patch set 4.',913,'AAALwX///7E='),(8,'2010-07-01 22:05:30','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',913,'AAALwX///lM='),(3,'2010-06-30 08:40:38','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',913,'AAALwX///vg='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:59','Change has been successfully pushed.',913,'AAALxH///48='),(1,'2010-06-22 23:02:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',914,'AAALwX////I='),(1,'2010-06-23 00:19:05','Uploaded patch set 3.',914,'AAALwX///+o='),(1,'2010-06-27 01:52:38','Uploaded patch set 4.',914,'AAALwX///1E='),(8,'2010-07-01 22:56:51','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',914,'AAALwX///jg='),(1,'2010-06-30 23:00:03','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\n',914,'AAALwX///rA='),(3,'2010-06-30 19:54:11','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',914,'AAALwX///s8='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:58','Change has been successfully pushed.',914,'AAALxH///5Y='),(1,'2010-06-22 23:02:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',915,'AAALwX////E='),(1,'2010-06-23 00:19:05','Uploaded patch set 3.',915,'AAALwX///+k='),(1,'2010-06-27 01:52:38','Uploaded patch set 4.',915,'AAALwX///1A='),(8,'2010-07-01 23:29:26','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',915,'AAALwX///i4='),(1,'2010-07-01 21:58:36','Patch Set 4: (3 inline comments)\n\n',915,'AAALwX///lY='),(3,'2010-07-01 19:09:45','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nI don\'t think the no-argument constructor is necessary but am not going to downvote as it\'s a trivial thing which can be resolved subsequently.',915,'AAALwX///mc='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:54','Change has been successfully pushed.',915,'AAALxH///6M='),(1,'2010-06-22 23:02:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',916,'AAALwX////U='),(1,'2010-06-23 00:19:04','Uploaded patch set 3.',916,'AAALwX///+0='),(1,'2010-06-27 01:52:36','Uploaded patch set 4.',916,'AAALwX///1M='),(8,'2010-07-01 23:37:22','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',916,'AAALwX///iw='),(3,'2010-07-01 21:12:40','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',916,'AAALwX///mY='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:53','Change has been successfully pushed.',916,'AAALxH///6Q='),(1,'2010-06-22 23:02:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',917,'AAALwX////Q='),(1,'2010-06-23 00:19:04','Uploaded patch set 3.',917,'AAALwX///+w='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',917,'AAALwX///7s='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:14','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased after being +1 by Matthias',917,'AAALwX///8M='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:58:13','Uploaded patch set 4.',917,'AAALwX///8s='),(4,'2010-06-23 22:39:12','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',917,'AAALwX///9Q='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:58:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',918,'AAALwX///84='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',918,'AAALwX///8A='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased after being +1 by Matthias',918,'AAALwX///8E='),(4,'2010-06-23 22:37:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',918,'AAALwX///9U='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased after being +1 by Matthias',919,'AAALwX///78='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',919,'AAALwX///7g='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:58:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',919,'AAALwX///80='),(4,'2010-06-23 22:34:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',919,'AAALwX///9Y='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',920,'AAALwX///7o='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:58:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',920,'AAALwX///88='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased after being +1 by Matthias',920,'AAALwX///8I='),(4,'2010-06-23 22:31:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',920,'AAALwX///9c='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:01:23','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nThis is trivial, so I\'m going to squash it into I1bd54ea0500337799a8e792874c272eb14d555f7, the refactoring change that caused it to become abstract in the first place.',921,'AAALwX///7U='),(4,'2010-06-23 22:30:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',921,'AAALwX///9g='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',922,'AAALwX///74='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased after being +1 by Matthias',922,'AAALwX///8c='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:58:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',922,'AAALwX///9E='),(4,'2010-06-23 22:27:29','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',922,'AAALwX///9k='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',923,'AAALwX///7k='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased after being +1 by Matthias',923,'AAALwX///8Y='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:58:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',923,'AAALwX///9A='),(4,'2010-06-23 22:23:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',923,'AAALwX///9w='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',924,'AAALwX///70='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased after being +1 by Matthias',924,'AAALwX///8k='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:58:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',924,'AAALwX///9M='),(4,'2010-06-23 22:26:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',924,'AAALwX///9o='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',925,'AAALwX///7w='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:59:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased after being +1 by Matthias',925,'AAALwX///8g='),(1,'2010-06-23 23:58:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',925,'AAALwX///9I='),(4,'2010-06-23 22:24:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',925,'AAALwX///9s='),(1,'2010-06-23 00:19:51','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\nThis change is strictly RFC.  It currently is broken because PackWriter (which is staying in lib) is still heavily dependent upon classes that we moved to storage.file, and I haven\'t yet found a way to refactor that dependency out.',926,'AAALwX///+Y='),(1,'2010-07-12 21:55:25','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nReplaced by same idea in Icca4884e1a418f83f8b617d0c4c78b73d8a4bd17',926,'AAALwX//+zs='),(1,'2010-07-01 00:51:16','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nSquashing into I2459757a26f8c724b95468f9f38bac2ee172a932',927,'AAALwX///qQ='),(46,'2010-06-24 18:05:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',928,'AAALwX///54='),(46,'2010-06-24 18:05:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',928,'AAALwX///6A='),(3,'2010-06-24 07:17:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nWorks for me.',928,'AAALwX///6Q='),(4,'2010-06-25 13:34:06','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- added explicit test suite specification to fix running the tests in maven\n\nNow these tests succeed both when run from Eclipse and maven.',929,'AAALwX///20='),(4,'2010-06-25 13:31:16','Uploaded patch set 6.',929,'AAALwX///24='),(4,'2010-06-25 11:53:49','Patch Set 5:\n\ntests pass now (tried from Eclipse Helios) :-)\n\nwill try from maven next\n\nbut I still saw this exception :\n\n!ENTRY org.eclipse.egit.ui 4 0 2010-06-25 13:50:37.664\n!MESSAGE \n!STACK 0\njava.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException\n	at org.eclipse.jface.operation.ModalContext.run(ModalContext.java:421)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog.run(WizardDialog.java:1008)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.clone.GitProjectsImportPage.setProjectsList(GitProjectsImportPage.java:321)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.clone.GitCreateProjectViaWizardWizard$1.setVisible(GitCreateProjectViaWizardWizard.java:94)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog.updateForPage(WizardDialog.java:1239)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog.access$4(WizardDialog.java:1218)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog$6.run(WizardDialog.java:1207)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.custom.BusyIndicator.showWhile(BusyIndicator.java:70)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog.showPage(WizardDialog.java:1205)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog.nextPressed(WizardDialog.java:894)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog.buttonPressed(WizardDialog.java:426)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.dialogs.Dialog$2.widgetSelected(Dialog.java:624)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.TypedListener.handleEvent(TypedListener.java:234)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.EventTable.sendEvent(EventTable.java:84)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1052)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1076)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1061)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.notifyListeners(Widget.java:773)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.AbstractSWTBot$2.run(AbstractSWTBot.java:159)\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:4041)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3660)\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.egit.ui.internal.repository.tree.command.ImportProjectsCommand.execute(ImportProjectsCommand.java:45)\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.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1052)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1076)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1061)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.notifyListeners(Widget.java:773)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper$3.run(ContextMenuHelper.java:110)\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:4041)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3660)\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: Invalid thread access\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:467)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.checkWidget(Widget.java:359)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Text.setText(Text.java:1950)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.dialogs.TitleAreaDialog.updateMessage(TitleAreaDialog.java:612)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.dialogs.TitleAreaDialog.setErrorMessage(TitleAreaDialog.java:409)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog.updateMessage(WizardDialog.java:1372)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardPage.setErrorMessage(WizardPage.java:257)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.clone.GitProjectsImportPage$7.run(GitProjectsImportPage.java:349)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.operation.ModalContext$ModalContextThread.run(ModalContext.java:121)\nRoot exception:\norg.eclipse.swt.SWTException: Invalid thread access\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:467)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.checkWidget(Widget.java:359)\n	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Text.setText(Text.java:1950)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.dialogs.TitleAreaDialog.updateMessage(TitleAreaDialog.java:612)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.dialogs.TitleAreaDialog.setErrorMessage(TitleAreaDialog.java:409)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardDialog.updateMessage(WizardDialog.java:1372)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.wizard.WizardPage.setErrorMessage(WizardPage.java:257)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.clone.GitProjectsImportPage$7.run(GitProjectsImportPage.java:349)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.operation.ModalContext$ModalContextThread.run(ModalContext.java:121)',929,'AAALwX///28='),(4,'2010-06-25 13:34:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',929,'AAALwX///2s='),(4,'2010-06-25 08:56:28','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed some style nits\n- removed some commented out dead code\n\ngreat improvement in test coverage ;-)\n\nOn my laptop I face spurious test failures, sometimes I get invalid thread access exceptions and sometimes InvocationTargetException in fetch and push tests.\n\nI think the fixes should better be committed as separate changes.',929,'AAALwX///3c='),(4,'2010-06-25 08:52:35','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\n',929,'AAALwX///3g='),(4,'2010-06-25 08:52:21','Uploaded patch set 3.',929,'AAALwX///3k='),(46,'2010-06-25 10:30:52','Patch Set 5:\n\nRemoved the changes in the productive coding from the commit. 11 of 28 tests had to be set to ignore so that the tests are green. Fixes will be submitted separately and tests will be re-activated accordingly.',929,'AAALwX///3M='),(46,'2010-06-25 10:28:58','Uploaded patch set 5.',929,'AAALwX///3Q='),(46,'2010-06-25 09:49:46','Uploaded patch set 4.',929,'AAALwX///3Y='),(46,'2010-06-24 18:01:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',929,'AAALwX///6I='),(46,'2010-06-25 06:00:32','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',930,'AAALwX///4g='),(46,'2010-06-25 06:05:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',930,'AAALwX///4I='),(46,'2010-06-25 06:05:56','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased',930,'AAALwX///4M='),(46,'2010-06-25 06:05:21','Uploaded patch set 3.',930,'AAALwX///4Q='),(NULL,'2010-06-25 06:00:55','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.',930,'AAALwX///4U='),(NULL,'2010-06-25 06:00:32','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.',930,'AAALwX///4Y='),(46,'2010-06-24 18:07:27','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nslightly more elegant: Text.selectAll()',930,'AAALwX///50='),(4,'2010-06-24 23:36:41','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',930,'AAALwX///5g='),(4,'2010-06-24 23:35:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',930,'AAALwX///5k='),(4,'2010-06-24 11:53:08','Patch Set 1:\n\nlucky mac user ;-) \non windows it\'s not auto selected, hence this patch',930,'AAALwX///6M='),(3,'2010-06-24 07:15:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nFor what it\'s worth, the text is auto selected on the Mac. But I don\'t see why we can\'t do this if it benefits other platforms as well.',930,'AAALwX///6U='),(46,'2010-06-24 05:38:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCool. I\'ll try to add some test with my big UI test change.',931,'AAALwX///6g='),(46,'2010-06-24 05:38:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',931,'AAALwX///6Y='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:35:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',932,'AAALwX///68='),(8,'2010-07-01 21:53:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThe \"old\" should be removed from the test name',932,'AAALwX///l4='),(3,'2010-06-29 08:47:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',932,'AAALwX///y0='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:12:01','Change has been successfully pushed.',932,'AAALxH///4o='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:35:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',933,'AAALwX///6o='),(8,'2010-07-01 21:54:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',933,'AAALwX///ls='),(3,'2010-06-29 08:49:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',933,'AAALwX///yw='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:12:00','Change has been successfully pushed.',933,'AAALxH///4s='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:35:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',934,'AAALwX///6s='),(8,'2010-07-01 21:57:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',934,'AAALwX///lk='),(3,'2010-06-29 08:52:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',934,'AAALwX///ys='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:12:00','Change has been successfully pushed.',934,'AAALxH///4w='),(1,'2010-06-24 00:35:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',935,'AAALwX///6w='),(8,'2010-07-01 22:04:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',935,'AAALwX///lQ='),(3,'2010-06-29 20:29:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nLooks good to me.',935,'AAALwX///xA='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:12:00','Change has been successfully pushed.',935,'AAALxH///44='),(46,'2010-06-24 18:02:38','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAgain...',936,'AAALwX///6E='),(1,'2010-06-28 17:52:21','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',937,'AAALwX///0c='),(1,'2010-06-28 18:01:34','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',937,'AAALwX///0Q='),(73,'2010-06-28 17:59:26','Uploaded patch set 6.',937,'AAALwX///0Y='),(73,'2010-06-25 19:43:57','Uploaded patch set 5.',937,'AAALwX///1s='),(1,'2010-06-25 18:46:34','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',937,'AAALwX///1w='),(73,'2010-06-25 17:37:38','Uploaded patch set 4.',937,'AAALwX///2I='),(73,'2010-06-25 17:27:34','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWhoops, forgot to address your second comment',937,'AAALwX///2M='),(73,'2010-06-25 16:42:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',937,'AAALwX///2o='),(73,'2010-06-25 17:25:58','Uploaded patch set 3.',937,'AAALwX///2U='),(1,'2010-06-25 17:04:34','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',937,'AAALwX///2Y='),(1,'2010-06-25 00:22:52','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(7 inline comments)\n\n',937,'AAALwX///5A='),(1,'2010-06-29 00:27:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',937,'AAALwX///y8='),(1,'2010-06-28 18:02:21','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',938,'AAALwX///0I='),(73,'2010-06-28 17:59:27','Uploaded patch set 6.',938,'AAALwX///0U='),(73,'2010-06-25 19:43:57','Uploaded patch set 5.',938,'AAALwX///1o='),(73,'2010-06-25 17:37:38','Uploaded patch set 4.',938,'AAALwX///2E='),(73,'2010-06-25 16:42:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',938,'AAALwX///2k='),(73,'2010-06-25 17:25:59','Uploaded patch set 3.',938,'AAALwX///2Q='),(1,'2010-06-25 00:24:28','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',938,'AAALwX///4w='),(73,'2010-06-28 20:16:02','Patch Set 6: Abandoned\n\nChange squashed into Ie56301aa',938,'AAALwX///z4='),(4,'2010-06-28 15:43:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',939,'AAALwX///0s='),(4,'2010-06-25 10:14:45','Patch Set 1:\n\ngood idea, I\'ll work on that',939,'AAALwX///3U='),(3,'2010-06-25 08:26:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nTook me a while to figure out what the tt stood for. Would tip be better?\n\nIdeally I\'d like this not to be hardcoded but to call a method to get this list on demand - so we can delegate to jgit in the future to find out supporteded protocols. \n\nSince we are touching this anyway, can we extract the list into a method called \"getSupportedMethods\" instead of assuming a built-in array? It could return a (tree)map of protocol names (as key) and tooltip as the value.',939,'AAALwX///3w='),(46,'2010-07-01 14:54:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',939,'AAALwX///nI='),(46,'2010-07-01 14:54:32','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased to master.',939,'AAALwX///nM='),(46,'2010-07-01 14:53:33','Uploaded patch set 4.',939,'AAALwX///nQ='),(NULL,'2010-07-01 14:52:38','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.',939,'AAALwX///nU='),(46,'2010-07-01 14:52:37','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',939,'AAALwX///nY='),(3,'2010-07-01 07:47:28','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nThis looks good to me. I suggest this gets added (and the dependent one abandoned) as a means of fixing the ssh/git+ssh issue simply - then work on a new way of exposing the set of exported protocols from the JGit layer instead of the EGit layer.',939,'AAALwX///pY='),(4,'2010-07-01 00:23:05','Uploaded patch set 3.',939,'AAALwX///qc='),(8,'2010-06-29 16:34:23','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',939,'AAALwX///xg='),(8,'2010-06-29 19:10:53','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',939,'AAALwX///xM='),(3,'2010-06-29 08:30:50','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nLooks good to me.',939,'AAALwX///y4='),(1,'2010-06-25 01:14:12','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nLack of Change-Id prevented this from matching up to Ic2f79e85.',940,'AAALwX///4s='),(1,'2010-06-25 01:14:35','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nLack of Change-Id prevented this from matching to Id0f5db79.',941,'AAALwX///4o='),(4,'2010-06-25 11:26:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',942,'AAALwX///3A='),(4,'2010-06-25 11:25:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',942,'AAALwX///3I='),(6,'2010-06-30 11:47:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',943,'AAALwX///uc='),(6,'2010-06-30 11:47:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',943,'AAALwX///uY='),(8,'2010-07-01 22:12:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',944,'AAALwX///lA='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:46:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',944,'AAALwX///rs='),(3,'2010-06-30 19:44:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',944,'AAALwX///tU='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:59','Change has been successfully pushed.',944,'AAALxH///5I='),(8,'2010-07-01 22:15:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',945,'AAALwX///k8='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:44:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',945,'AAALwX///rw='),(3,'2010-06-30 19:45:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',945,'AAALwX///tQ='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:59','Change has been successfully pushed.',945,'AAALxH///5M='),(8,'2010-07-01 22:50:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nTerminology: /tmp is kind of unixish speak and the temp directory might not even be called /tmp on unix',946,'AAALwX///jw='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:38:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',946,'AAALwX///r0='),(3,'2010-06-30 19:47:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',946,'AAALwX///tM='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:58','Change has been successfully pushed.',946,'AAALxH///5Q='),(8,'2010-07-01 22:52:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\nWithout and S3 account to try with, I\'ll have to trust you',947,'AAALwX///jo='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:36:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',947,'AAALwX///r4='),(3,'2010-06-30 19:50:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',947,'AAALwX///tI='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:58','Change has been successfully pushed.',947,'AAALxH///5U='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:29:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',948,'AAALwX///r8='),(3,'2010-06-30 19:55:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',948,'AAALwX///s4='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:58','Change has been successfully pushed.',948,'AAALxH///5c='),(1,'2010-06-30 23:01:43','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',949,'AAALwX///q4='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:28:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',949,'AAALwX///sA='),(3,'2010-06-30 19:57:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',949,'AAALwX///sw='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:58','Change has been successfully pushed.',949,'AAALxH///5g='),(8,'2010-07-01 23:07:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',950,'AAALwX///jY='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:25:23','Patch Set 1:\n\ntypo in commit message:\ns/config type heirarchy/config type hierarchy/\n\nother than that this change is ok',950,'AAALwX///sE='),(3,'2010-06-30 20:00:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',950,'AAALwX///ss='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:58','Change has been successfully pushed.',950,'AAALxH///5k='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:21:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',951,'AAALwX///sI='),(3,'2010-06-30 20:01:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nWould seem to be independent of other changes if you wanted to push earlier',951,'AAALwX///so='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:57','Change has been successfully pushed.',951,'AAALxH///5o='),(3,'2010-06-30 20:02:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',952,'AAALwX///sk='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:20:54','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',952,'AAALwX///sM='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:57','Change has been successfully pushed.',952,'AAALxH///5s='),(3,'2010-06-30 20:03:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',953,'AAALwX///sg='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:18:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',953,'AAALwX///sQ='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:57','Change has been successfully pushed.',953,'AAALxH///5w='),(3,'2010-06-30 20:05:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',954,'AAALwX///sc='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:17:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',954,'AAALwX///sU='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:57','Change has been successfully pushed.',954,'AAALxH///50='),(8,'2010-07-01 23:20:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',955,'AAALwX///jI='),(3,'2010-07-01 11:26:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',955,'AAALwX///oI='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:55','Change has been successfully pushed.',955,'AAALxH///58='),(8,'2010-07-01 23:21:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',956,'AAALwX///jE='),(3,'2010-07-01 11:26:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',956,'AAALwX///oE='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:55','Change has been successfully pushed.',956,'AAALxH///6A='),(8,'2010-07-01 23:39:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',957,'AAALwX///is='),(3,'2010-07-01 21:23:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',957,'AAALwX///mQ='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:53','Change has been successfully pushed.',957,'AAALxH///6U='),(8,'2010-06-27 22:41:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',958,'AAALwX///04='),(3,'2010-07-02 08:20:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',958,'AAALwX///hM='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:53','Change has been successfully pushed.',958,'AAALxH///6Y='),(3,'2010-07-02 08:33:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',959,'AAALwX///g4='),(1,'2010-07-03 00:06:01','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\n',959,'AAALwX///ZY='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:53','Change has been successfully pushed.',959,'AAALxH///6c='),(3,'2010-07-02 08:44:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',960,'AAALwX///gs='),(4,'2010-07-03 19:31:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',960,'AAALwX///Ww='),(3,'2010-07-03 07:23:42','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',960,'AAALwX///X4='),(1,'2010-07-03 00:13:53','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',960,'AAALwX///ZI='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:53','Change has been successfully pushed.',960,'AAALxH///6g='),(1,'2010-07-02 22:39:39','Patch Set 1:\n\nYea, rename detection failed horribly on this change.  The files are really small, and the headers are really big, and the bulk of the header doesn\'t change since its common to every file.\n\nAnyway, I left the copyright headers in because the files are derived from Robin\'s work. I took his work, copied it, pasted to the new file, and deleted the other method.  Its derived enough that I felt better leaving his notice than to strip it out.',961,'AAALwX///cA='),(4,'2010-07-02 22:35:28','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\nSome of these renames are probably only detected as renames since the two versions carry the same license header, right? This looks odd, but a generic diff can\'t see this oddity',961,'AAALwX///cM='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:17:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',961,'AAALwX///dA='),(3,'2010-07-02 08:52:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',961,'AAALwX///gg='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:52','Change has been successfully pushed.',961,'AAALxH///6k='),(4,'2010-07-02 22:18:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',962,'AAALwX///c0='),(1,'2010-07-02 22:21:02','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',962,'AAALwX///cc='),(1,'2010-07-02 22:12:59','Patch Set 1:\n\nAny suggestions on what we should do here?  Do we try (again) to rip out the getDirectory method entirely?',962,'AAALwX///dc='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:15:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nFor the sake of getting a huge patch series past...',962,'AAALwX///dE='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:11:42','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis one will need further work.',962,'AAALwX///dg='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:15:09','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',962,'AAALwX///dM='),(3,'2010-07-02 21:44:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',962,'AAALwX///eQ='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:52','Change has been successfully pushed.',962,'AAALxH///6o='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:17:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',963,'AAALwX///c4='),(4,'2010-07-02 22:19:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',963,'AAALwX///cs='),(3,'2010-07-02 21:45:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',963,'AAALwX///eM='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:52','Change has been successfully pushed.',963,'AAALxH///6s='),(4,'2010-07-02 22:41:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',964,'AAALwX///b4='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:18:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',964,'AAALwX///cw='),(3,'2010-07-02 21:46:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',964,'AAALwX///eI='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:52','Change has been successfully pushed.',964,'AAALxH///6w='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:20:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',965,'AAALwX///co='),(3,'2010-07-02 21:49:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',965,'AAALwX///eE='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:52','Change has been successfully pushed.',965,'AAALxH///60='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:20:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',966,'AAALwX///ck='),(3,'2010-07-02 21:51:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',966,'AAALwX///d4='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:52','Change has been successfully pushed.',966,'AAALxH///64='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:25:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',967,'AAALwX///cU='),(3,'2010-07-02 21:55:29','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',967,'AAALwX///dw='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:51','Change has been successfully pushed.',967,'AAALxH///68='),(1,'2010-07-02 22:43:37','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',968,'AAALwX///bw='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:37:29','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',968,'AAALwX///cE='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:49','Change has been successfully pushed.',968,'AAALxH///7A='),(1,'2010-07-02 22:57:23','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',969,'AAALwX///ao='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:51:49','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nCan be fixed by follow-up patch, after which we\'ll flip the approved flag.',969,'AAALwX///bE='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:36:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',969,'AAALwX///Q0='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:49','Change has been successfully pushed.',969,'AAALxH///7E='),(8,'2010-07-02 22:58:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',970,'AAALwX///ak='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:49','Change has been successfully pushed.',970,'AAALxH///7I='),(8,'2010-07-02 23:28:09','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n1) The \"assuming 32-bit pointers\" part is misleading.\n\n2) nitpick(?): The cost of having an object actually means having a reference to it somewhere. Current JVM won\'t pack objects like C does.\n\nOther than that, ok.',971,'AAALwX///ac='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:37:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',971,'AAALwX///SY='),(1,'2010-07-03 00:21:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nAre you expecting me to rewrite the series to edit this commit message?\n\nYea, the JVM doesn\'t quite pack data the same way as C git does, so that part is a little misleading here, but its a useful approximation of how heavy a given entry in the object to pack table is.',971,'AAALwX///Y4='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:48','Change has been successfully pushed.',971,'AAALxH///7M='),(8,'2010-07-02 23:29:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',972,'AAALwX///aY='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:48','Change has been successfully pushed.',972,'AAALxH///7Q='),(8,'2010-07-02 23:54:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',973,'AAALwX///aM='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:32:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',973,'AAALwX///Sg='),(1,'2010-07-02 23:58:40','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',973,'AAALwX///Z4='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:48','Change has been successfully pushed.',973,'AAALxH///7U='),(8,'2010-07-02 23:56:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',974,'AAALwX///aI='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:48','Change has been successfully pushed.',974,'AAALxH///7Y='),(4,'2010-06-29 23:59:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',975,'AAALwX///wQ='),(4,'2010-06-29 23:59:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',975,'AAALwX///wU='),(46,'2010-06-28 07:21:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',976,'AAALwX///00='),(46,'2010-06-28 07:22:28','Uploaded patch set 3.',976,'AAALwX///0w='),(4,'2010-06-30 00:36:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',976,'AAALwX///v0='),(4,'2010-06-30 00:36:40','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- verified that tests pass both from Eclipse and Maven',976,'AAALwX///v8='),(4,'2010-06-30 00:35:13','Uploaded patch set 4.',976,'AAALwX///wA='),(8,'2010-06-28 19:36:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nFor internal use within the class an enum will be much better thatn this. For the API we should use strings.',977,'AAALwX///0A='),(3,'2010-06-28 17:47:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nOh good grief, not an enum. Enums represent the ultimate evil for potentially extensible data sets as it\'s impossible to add new irks after the fact. In any case, this should really be a front to a call in JGit rather than permanent code in EGit',977,'AAALwX///0g='),(46,'2010-06-28 17:26:23','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCouldn\'t we do a better encapsulation by using an enum instead of a class?',977,'AAALwX///0k='),(4,'2010-07-02 23:21:11','Uploaded patch set 4.',977,'AAALwX///ag='),(4,'2010-07-02 23:35:22','Uploaded patch set 5.',977,'AAALwX///aU='),(46,'2010-07-07 06:45:14','Patch Set 7:\n\nThis was a mishap. Fixed on http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1066',977,'AAALwX///HY='),(11,'2010-07-06 21:55:37','Patch Set 7: (1 inline comment)\n\n',977,'AAALwX///Jc='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:33:38','Uploaded patch set 7.',977,'AAALwX///Nc='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:34:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',977,'AAALwX///NU='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:34:00','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nA good step forward.',977,'AAALwX///NY='),(3,'2010-07-01 11:14:52','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI think you could keep this proto implementation but switch the enum to a static class without losing any of the cleaned up logic. At least with a class, there\'s a possibility that it will be used as the refactored class for JGit and we\'re setting the bar for an open, rather than closed, set at this point.\n\nSo I\'d suggest:\n\nprivate static class Protocol {\n  private static final SSH = new Protocol(\"ssh\",true,true...);\n  private static final FILE = new Protocol(\"file\",true)... { @overrides ... }\n}\n\nThis may subsequently evolve to an abstract class and concrete subclasses instead of on-the-fly inner classes, but I think stays true to this initial goal of the tidy up.',977,'AAALwX///oU='),(11,'2010-07-01 10:07:15','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',977,'AAALwX///oY='),(4,'2010-07-01 09:17:57','Patch Set 3:\n\nMy goal was to cleanup this class a bit since protocol intrinsic information was spread over the whole class RepositorySelectionPage. \n\nI agree that in another step we should further refine this and find a solution to make this part of the JGit API. I also agree that for a public API the currently chosen enum approach might not be optimal. Hence I switched visibility of the enum to private to make clear that this implementation is not part of any public API.\n\nBut still I believe this proposal is cleaner than the previous implementation.',977,'AAALwX///pA='),(3,'2010-07-01 07:45:17','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI think this is the wrong thing to do. We want this information to be stored in JGit, not in EGit. The goal was to provide a transparent mechanism by which the existence of a protocol could be refactored into a method which could then later be delegated to JGit, not by implementing the full set of representation/lookups in EGit.\n\nSecondly, an enum is almost always the wrong choice when trying to build a system which is extensible after the fact. Whether or not adding a new item is backwardly binary compatible is missing the point - if you bake in the full (and closed) set into source code, then it is impossible to externally add a new provider afterwards without modifying that source code. As an example, CDT shipped with an enum of languages (C, CPP) which made it impossible to write an Objective C addition without source code changes - and that then required an entire yearly release cycle for CDT\'s base to have that new enum constant in. Although the release cycles for EGit are shorter, the same problem exists - bake it into a fixed set now, and it can\'t be updated externally. That means that post 0.9 (say) even if someone does develop a new protocol which is entirely workable - even if it gets baked into master - no-one who has 0.9 checked out can take advantage of that, even if it\'s completely compatible with 0.9 unless a 0.9.1 (or 0.9.2) is released with a new constant/entry in the enum class.\n\nEnums don\'t mix with dynamic extensibility. It would be even worse if this became a public class in JGit. (A class would be better than an enum since this can then be externally instantiated by new providers after the fact.)',977,'AAALwX///pc='),(11,'2010-07-01 09:12:55','Patch Set 2:\n\nThis should be implemented in JGit and as a temporary solution may remain in EGit for some time, not a big problem. But the lack of external_ extensibility is a real problem.\n\nThanks Alex for detailed explanation.',977,'AAALwX///pM='),(46,'2010-07-01 06:35:05','Patch Set 2:\n\nGreat. Needs some rabase once the other change is in.',977,'AAALwX///po='),(4,'2010-07-01 09:10:06','Uploaded patch set 3.',977,'AAALwX///pQ='),(46,'2010-07-01 06:34:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nGreat. Needs some rabase once the other change is in.',977,'AAALwX///ps='),(4,'2010-07-01 00:28:24','Patch Set 2:\n\nAlex: according to [1] adding another value to an enum doesn\'t break binary compatibility.\n\n[1] section 13.4.26 in http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/binaryComp.html',977,'AAALwX///qU='),(4,'2010-07-01 00:23:06','Uploaded patch set 2.',977,'AAALwX///qY='),(4,'2010-07-05 16:06:01','Uploaded patch set 6.',977,'AAALwX///TI='),(3,'2010-07-03 20:28:54','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nAs noted, changing from an ArrayList to a TreeMap and using the protocol name as the key will give us an open-ended total ordering which means the ordinal is superflous to requirements.',977,'AAALwX///WI='),(46,'2010-07-19 13:57:54','Uploaded patch set 9.',978,'AAALw3///+s='),(6,'2010-07-20 08:20:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',978,'AAALw3///80='),(6,'2010-07-20 08:20:45','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',978,'AAALw3///84='),(46,'2010-07-20 07:33:50','Uploaded patch set 10.',978,'AAALw3///9M='),(6,'2010-07-20 07:18:24','Patch Set 9: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nThe coding from commit \"Merge: provide user feedback\" is lost when this change is committed.',978,'AAALw3///9Q='),(44,'2010-07-19 15:46:40','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',978,'AAALw3///9s='),(46,'2010-07-16 17:27:46','Uploaded patch set 8.',978,'AAALwn///6c='),(2,'2010-07-06 15:21:13','Patch Set 5: IP review completed\n\nCan you fix the conflicts and rebase the changes?\n\nI would like to see this in 0.9',978,'AAALwX///Lk='),(46,'2010-07-06 15:35:39','Uploaded patch set 6.',978,'AAALwX///LY='),(46,'2010-07-01 08:52:32','Uploaded patch set 5.',978,'AAALwX///pU='),(46,'2010-06-29 16:47:04','Uploaded patch set 3.',978,'AAALwX///xc='),(46,'2010-06-29 16:50:00','Uploaded patch set 4.',978,'AAALwX///xU='),(46,'2010-06-29 16:48:50','Patch Set 3:\n\nThanks Remy for these great comments. I have worked them into the new patch set.',978,'AAALwX///xY='),(46,'2010-06-29 11:37:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',978,'AAALwX///yc='),(63,'2010-06-29 12:32:43','Patch Set 2:\n\nHandlerUtil\'s \"checked\" methods throws an ExecutionException though that is \"valid\" because an IHandler\'s execute(ExecutionEvent) method does declare that it can throw an ExecutionException so you can propagate the exception upwards if you wish.\n\nSo feel free to use the \"checked\" method if a \'null\' return value will cause problems.',978,'AAALwX///yE='),(63,'2010-06-29 12:27:10','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\nI just clicked a few random files. I will try to do a more thorough review later this week.',978,'AAALwX///yI='),(46,'2010-07-12 06:54:04','Uploaded patch set 7.',978,'AAALwX//+3s='),(1,'2010-06-29 00:27:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',979,'AAALwX///zA='),(1,'2010-06-29 00:26:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',979,'AAALwX///zE='),(1,'2010-06-28 23:59:56','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nMostly LGTM.  A couple more tests, and some optimization in the whitespace change.',979,'AAALwX///zg='),(73,'2010-06-29 00:25:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',979,'AAALwX///zI='),(73,'2010-06-29 00:20:51','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',979,'AAALwX///zQ='),(73,'2010-06-29 00:11:12','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',979,'AAALwX///zY='),(4,'2010-06-29 13:02:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',980,'AAALwX///x8='),(4,'2010-06-29 13:02:46','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',980,'AAALwX///yA='),(1,'2010-06-28 23:47:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\nLGTM, but I didn\'t compile test it.  :-)',980,'AAALwX///z0='),(4,'2010-06-29 23:58:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nverified that build works and resulting features can be installed',981,'AAALwX///wg='),(4,'2010-06-29 23:58:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',981,'AAALwX///wY='),(73,'2010-06-29 00:24:49','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nForgot Change-ID to link with Ie56301aa',982,'AAALwX///zM='),(8,'2010-07-02 23:57:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',983,'AAALwX///aE='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:47','Change has been successfully pushed.',983,'AAALxH///7c='),(8,'2010-07-02 23:58:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',984,'AAALwX///aA='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:47','Change has been successfully pushed.',984,'AAALxH///7g='),(8,'2010-07-02 23:59:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',985,'AAALwX///Z0='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:47','Change has been successfully pushed.',985,'AAALxH///7k='),(8,'2010-07-02 23:59:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',986,'AAALwX///Zw='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:47','Change has been successfully pushed.',986,'AAALxH///7o='),(8,'2010-07-07 21:27:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',987,'AAALwX///CE='),(1,'2010-07-07 00:35:06','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',987,'AAALwX///IM='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:43:31','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',987,'AAALwX///SQ='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:47','Change has been successfully pushed.',987,'AAALxH///7s='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:44:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',988,'AAALwX///SM='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:47','Change has been successfully pushed.',988,'AAALxH///7w='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:45:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',989,'AAALwX///SI='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:46','Change has been successfully pushed.',989,'AAALxH///70='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:45:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',990,'AAALwX///SE='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:46','Change has been successfully pushed.',990,'AAALxH///74='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:50:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',991,'AAALwX///SA='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:46','Change has been successfully pushed.',991,'AAALxH///78='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:52:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',992,'AAALwX///R8='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:45','Change has been successfully pushed.',992,'AAALxH///8A='),(1,'2010-07-07 02:43:36','Patch Set 1:\n\nRegarding the names being this short, I got tired of typing \"hasObject\" or \"openObject\" in contexts that seemed to me to be, well, damn clear it was an object we were hasing or opening.  In every case the argument seemed unambiguous, and it often felt redundant to be saying \"fooObject\" everywhere.\n\nAlso, the semantics have changed slightly.  open no longer returns null, it throws an exception.  Chopping the method name shorter forces callers to update their call sites.  Hopefully when they do that they would also update their error handling, if necessary.',993,'AAALwX///H4='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:55:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',993,'AAALwX///R0='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:55:23','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'d prefer you didn\'t simplify the names this much.....\nbut I\'ll approve anyway',993,'AAALwX///R4='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:45','Change has been successfully pushed.',993,'AAALxH///8E='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:55:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',994,'AAALwX///Rw='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:45','Change has been successfully pushed.',994,'AAALxH///8I='),(8,'2010-07-03 00:03:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',995,'AAALwX///Zo='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:45','Change has been successfully pushed.',995,'AAALxH///8M='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:39:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',996,'AAALwX///Qo='),(4,'2010-06-30 22:11:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',996,'AAALwX///rM='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:45','Change has been successfully pushed.',996,'AAALxH///8Q='),(4,'2010-06-30 22:04:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',997,'AAALwX///rQ='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:58:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',997,'AAALwX///Rs='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:44','Change has been successfully pushed.',997,'AAALxH///8U='),(8,'2010-06-29 14:16:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',998,'AAALwX///x4='),(8,'2010-06-29 14:16:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',998,'AAALwX///xw='),(8,'2010-06-29 14:16:53','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAlready fixed',999,'AAALwX///xs='),(46,'2010-06-29 14:19:02','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nShould go to 0.8.stable, not master',1000,'AAALwX///xo='),(1,'2010-06-30 00:23:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1001,'AAALwX///wE='),(1,'2010-06-30 00:23:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased onto master to get a more linear history.',1001,'AAALwX///wI='),(1,'2010-06-30 00:23:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',1001,'AAALwX///wM='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:59:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1002,'AAALwX///Ro='),(4,'2010-06-30 22:03:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1002,'AAALwX///rU='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:44','Change has been successfully pushed.',1002,'AAALxH///8Y='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:01:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1003,'AAALwX///Rk='),(4,'2010-06-30 22:01:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1003,'AAALwX///rY='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:44','Change has been successfully pushed.',1003,'AAALxH///8c='),(4,'2010-06-30 22:01:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1004,'AAALwX///rc='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:04:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1004,'AAALwX///Rg='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:44','Change has been successfully pushed.',1004,'AAALxH///8g='),(46,'2010-06-30 13:21:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1005,'AAALwX///t4='),(46,'2010-06-30 13:21:18','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased to master. Thanks Benjamin.',1005,'AAALwX///t8='),(46,'2010-06-30 13:20:16','Uploaded patch set 3.',1005,'AAALwX///uA='),(74,'2010-06-30 11:33:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1005,'AAALwX///ug='),(46,'2010-06-30 08:33:19','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nThanks for this fix which looks good. However, I would like you to change the commit message according to the description found in\n\nhttp://wiki.eclipse.org/EGit/Contributor_Guide#Commit_message_guidelines\n\nPlease paste the Change-Id from this change into it so that Gerrit can re-use this change.',1005,'AAALwX///vk='),(4,'2010-06-30 08:07:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1006,'AAALwX///vo='),(4,'2010-06-30 08:07:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1006,'AAALwX///vw='),(46,'2010-07-19 12:58:41','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nNeed to wait for a few other changes to be merged.',1007,'AAALw3///+w='),(46,'2010-07-22 16:31:34','Uploaded patch set 8.',1007,'AAALw3///1g='),(46,'2010-07-23 08:08:12','Uploaded patch set 9.',1007,'AAALw3///y0='),(46,'2010-07-23 08:35:34','Uploaded patch set 10.',1007,'AAALw3///yw='),(46,'2010-07-07 17:02:05','Uploaded patch set 5.',1007,'AAALwX///C0='),(46,'2010-07-07 17:00:59','Uploaded patch set 4.',1007,'AAALwX///C4='),(46,'2010-07-07 16:58:58','Uploaded patch set 3.',1007,'AAALwX///C8='),(46,'2010-07-07 17:05:21','Uploaded patch set 6.',1007,'AAALwX///Cw='),(46,'2010-07-06 05:30:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',1007,'AAALwX///O8='),(46,'2010-07-06 05:27:51','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1007,'AAALwX///PA='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:51:16','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1007,'AAALwX///QY='),(46,'2010-07-12 08:52:15','Uploaded patch set 7.',1007,'AAALwX//+3o='),(46,'2010-07-28 11:17:39','Uploaded patch set 11.',1007,'AAALxH///0Y='),(46,'2010-08-04 17:30:40','Uploaded patch set 12.',1007,'AAALxn///20='),(46,'2010-08-04 17:32:02','Patch Set 12:\n\nRebased again. A couple of bugs that were introduced with the change to the command framework and which were found with the tests were also fixed on this change.',1007,'AAALxn///2w='),(46,'2010-08-19 13:19:17','Uploaded patch set 13.',1007,'AAALyH///dY='),(46,'2010-08-23 07:47:47','Uploaded patch set 14.',1007,'AAALyn///+4='),(6,'2010-08-27 15:05:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1007,'AAALyn///mg='),(6,'2010-08-27 15:05:02','Patch Set 18: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks, Mathias!',1007,'AAALyn///mk='),(46,'2010-08-27 14:58:03','Uploaded patch set 18.',1007,'AAALyn///mo='),(6,'2010-08-27 13:18:49','Patch Set 17: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI ran the GitRepositoriesViewFetchAndPushTest and got an error in the console:\n\njava.io.IOException: No Push URIs defined for remote origin\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.push.PushConfiguredRemoteAction.run(PushConfiguredRemoteAction.java:78)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.repository.tree.command.PushConfiguredRemoteCommand.execute(PushConfiguredRemoteCommand.java:29)\n\nThe PushConfiguredRemoteAction does not look for the Fetch URI if it does not find a push URI.',1007,'AAALyn///ns='),(46,'2010-08-26 12:42:16','Uploaded patch set 17.',1007,'AAALyn///rQ='),(46,'2010-08-26 12:31:09','Uploaded patch set 16.',1007,'AAALyn///rU='),(6,'2010-08-25 09:22:00','Patch Set 14: (1 inline comment)\n\nPlease rebase once again. The current state does not work with current JGit. There was an API change in JGit. EGit was adapted to that change in commit f01b3b007c43adc1ac7c9b3c876453a868f85bbe.',1007,'AAALyn///z4='),(46,'2010-08-25 10:37:54','Uploaded patch set 15.',1007,'AAALyn///zc='),(46,'2010-08-25 10:38:35','Patch Set 15:\n\nRebased and fixed some issues with nonexisting/nonexternalized labels which resulted in test failures.',1007,'AAALyn///zY='),(6,'2010-06-30 10:49:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1008,'AAALwX///u4='),(6,'2010-06-30 10:49:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWorks fine.\n\nThe commit-msg hook does not yet work with EGit, therefore we do not yet require a Change-Id in the first patch set.',1008,'AAALwX///u8='),(11,'2010-06-30 09:43:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nTested with Eclipse SDK Version: 3.5.0, Build id: I20090611-1540.\n\nAlex, you are not using commit-msg hook [1] and that\'s why your commit has no Change-Id, right? \n\n[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/EGit/Contributor_Guide#Install_the_commit-msg_hook_in_your_repository',1008,'AAALwX///vI='),(11,'2010-06-30 09:32:41','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\njust wanted to sign-off Alex\'s change',1009,'AAALwX///vQ='),(11,'2010-06-30 09:35:23','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1010,'AAALwX///vM='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:04:36','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nI\'ll redo this when Shawn\'s refactoring is over',1011,'AAALwX///sY='),(2,'2010-07-06 15:17:28','Uploaded patch set 3.',1012,'AAALwX///L4='),(2,'2010-07-06 15:25:37','Patch Set 3:\n\nI created bug 319021 to look at adding tests.',1012,'AAALwX///Lc='),(46,'2010-07-06 15:21:30','Patch Set 3:\n\nHmm... How about the missing tests? I love this feature, but we should also add tests.',1012,'AAALwX///Lg='),(2,'2010-07-06 15:18:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1012,'AAALwX///Ls='),(2,'2010-07-06 15:18:00','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDid some cleanup and updated the patch.\n\nWe\'re good to go. Thanks Benny.',1012,'AAALwX///Lw='),(46,'2010-07-01 14:39:52','Patch Set 2:\n\nOops, same style nit as before:\n\nstart commit message headers with an uppercase letter',1012,'AAALwX///nc='),(46,'2010-07-01 14:39:52','Patch Set 2:\n\nOops, same style nit as before:\n\nstart commit message headers with an uppercase letter',1012,'AAALwX///ng='),(46,'2010-07-01 14:38:33','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nVery cool. What\'s missing are some UI tests. For a start, you may want to have a look at GitRepositoriesViewTest.testImportWizard(). If you simply copy this to, say, testImportWizardWithWorkingSet(), you should be able to do the job. I think verification that the new project is in fact in the expected working set could be done using the API IWorkingSet.getElements(), i.e. no check if the project explorer shows the hierarchy or such.\nPlease do not hesitate to contact me if you have issues or questions regarding the SWTBot infrastructure or such.',1012,'AAALwX///nk='),(74,'2010-06-30 15:47:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',1012,'AAALwX///tg='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:06:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDue to the hazzle relative to the size of the patch set .. approve anyway',1013,'AAALwX///Rc='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:51:53','Patch Set 1:\n\ntypo in commit message:\ns/makes it easire/makes it easier/\n\nother than that the change is ok',1013,'AAALwX///rk='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:44','Change has been successfully pushed.',1013,'AAALxH///8k='),(4,'2010-06-30 21:49:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1014,'AAALwX///ro='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:44','Change has been successfully pushed.',1014,'AAALxH///8o='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1015,'AAALwn///6k='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:08','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1015,'AAALwn///7s='),(1,'2010-07-01 22:36:50','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nWill submit when more of the series is complete.',1015,'AAALwX///k0='),(73,'2010-07-01 22:34:03','Uploaded patch set 3.',1015,'AAALwX///k4='),(1,'2010-06-30 23:36:53','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\nLGTM, but I\'m going to hold off on submitting this until we have more of the series ready to go in.',1015,'AAALwX///qg='),(73,'2010-06-30 23:35:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',1015,'AAALwX///qk='),(1,'2010-06-30 23:29:51','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nMostly LGTM, see the one style nit inline.',1015,'AAALwX///qw='),(73,'2010-06-30 23:34:21','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nForgot change ID to link with Change I8398728c',1016,'AAALwX///qs='),(46,'2010-07-01 06:25:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI have added chapter \"Development IDE Configuration\" to\nhttp://wiki.eclipse.org/EGit/Contributor_Guide\nin order to instruct contributors about this.',1017,'AAALwX///p0='),(46,'2010-07-01 06:26:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1017,'AAALwX///pw='),(49,'2010-07-01 00:54:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nLooks OK for me.',1017,'AAALwX///qE='),(4,'2010-07-01 09:23:04','Patch Set 1:\n\nNext time please capitalize the commit message header:\n\ns/removed dependency/Removed dependency/',1018,'AAALwX///o4='),(11,'2010-07-01 09:17:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1018,'AAALwX///pE='),(11,'2010-07-01 09:17:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1018,'AAALwX///pI='),(49,'2010-07-01 00:56:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nIndeed this is my mistake. EasyMock can be removed from egit.core dependencies.',1018,'AAALwX///qA='),(1,'2010-07-01 18:11:16','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAs Mathias points out, its already fixed.',1019,'AAALwX///nE='),(46,'2010-07-01 06:43:20','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nAlready fixed on 1017.\n\nI have added chapter \"Development IDE Configuration\" to http://wiki.eclipse.org/EGit/Contributor_Guide in order to instruct contributors about this.',1019,'AAALwX///pk='),(4,'2010-07-01 13:22:13','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1020,'AAALwX///n0='),(74,'2010-07-01 13:10:09','Uploaded patch set 3.',1020,'AAALwX///n4='),(74,'2010-07-01 13:07:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',1020,'AAALwX///n8='),(4,'2010-07-01 13:22:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1020,'AAALwX///nw='),(4,'2010-07-01 09:32:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nGood catch :-)\n\nSome style nits:\n- commit message header should start with an uppercase letter\n- some trailing whitespace in the css',1020,'AAALwX///ok='),(46,'2010-07-02 16:19:11','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nYes, exactly... I was already about to do it... Thanks.',1021,'AAALwX///fo='),(46,'2010-07-02 16:18:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',1021,'AAALwX///fs='),(74,'2010-07-02 12:18:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',1021,'AAALwX///gY='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:58:19','Uploaded patch set 4.',1021,'AAALwX///Mc='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:58:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1021,'AAALwX///MU='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:58:39','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Benny!',1021,'AAALwX///MY='),(4,'2010-07-01 09:24:24','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nstyle nit: start commit message headers with an uppercase letter',1021,'AAALwX///o0='),(46,'2010-07-01 06:52:33','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nIn principle the approach is correct, but as I learned about HandlerUtil recently (from Remy Suen), I believe we should to this properly: use the HandlerUtil.getCurrentSelectionChecked() and HandlerUtil.getActivePartChecked(), respectively, and propagate the ExecutionException to the callers. This should improve our Exception handling here siginificantly.',1021,'AAALwX///pg='),(4,'2010-07-01 09:40:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1022,'AAALwX///og='),(1,'2010-07-01 01:57:28','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'m still experimenting with this interface, but I\'m offering it up for comments.',1022,'AAALwX///p4='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:08:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1022,'AAALwX///RY='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:43','Change has been successfully pushed.',1022,'AAALxH///8s='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:08:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1023,'AAALwX///RU='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:43','Change has been successfully pushed.',1023,'AAALxH///8w='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:10:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1024,'AAALwX///RQ='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:43','Change has been successfully pushed.',1024,'AAALxH///80='),(8,'2010-07-01 21:42:34','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',1025,'AAALwX///mE='),(8,'2010-07-01 21:42:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1025,'AAALwX///mI='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:43','Change has been successfully pushed.',1025,'AAALxH///84='),(8,'2010-07-06 22:30:40','Patch Set 1:\n\nI did rebuild EGit, but sometimes Eclipse just doesn\'t do a clean well enough.',1026,'AAALwX///JA='),(8,'2010-07-06 22:29:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\nSomethings rotten.. now works',1026,'AAALwX///JE='),(1,'2010-07-06 22:15:39','Patch Set 1:\n\nIf this change is causing EGit to fail, that\'s EGit\'s problem.  Its a signature change, but that should be reflected as a compile or runtime linkage error that is easily fixed by rebuilding EGit.',1026,'AAALwX///JI='),(8,'2010-07-06 22:03:04','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nDoes not look good after all, though I cannot understand why.\n\nSee I09d0aafb3d15436e942acc4b722a63d35f58051a for the version of EGit I tried where BlobStorageTest.testFailCorrupt2 fails. I had to change it to actually read data now that we are streaming.',1026,'AAALwX///JY='),(8,'2010-07-01 21:29:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1026,'AAALwX///mM='),(4,'2010-07-01 09:20:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1026,'AAALwX///o8='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:43','Change has been successfully pushed.',1026,'AAALxH///88='),(6,'2010-07-02 13:32:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1027,'AAALwX///gQ='),(6,'2010-07-02 13:32:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1027,'AAALwX///gU='),(46,'2010-07-02 06:43:02','Uploaded patch set 2.',1027,'AAALwX///hU='),(4,'2010-07-03 00:36:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1028,'AAALwX///Yg='),(4,'2010-07-03 00:36:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased onto current master',1028,'AAALwX///Yk='),(4,'2010-07-03 00:34:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',1028,'AAALwX///Yw='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1029,'AAALwn///6o='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:02','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1029,'AAALwn///7w='),(1,'2010-07-02 00:36:05','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nLGTM, will submit after we get further through the series.',1029,'AAALwX///hc='),(73,'2010-07-02 00:34:06','Uploaded patch set 5.',1029,'AAALwX///hg='),(1,'2010-07-02 00:17:36','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1029,'AAALwX///hk='),(73,'2010-07-02 00:11:48','Uploaded patch set 4.',1029,'AAALwX///hw='),(1,'2010-07-01 22:57:21','Patch Set 1: (16 inline comments)\n\n',1029,'AAALwX///jc='),(73,'2010-07-01 22:38:38','Uploaded patch set 3.',1029,'AAALwX///kg='),(73,'2010-07-01 22:37:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',1029,'AAALwX///ks='),(46,'2010-07-02 06:43:35','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWell...',1030,'AAALwX///hQ='),(6,'2010-07-02 14:31:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1031,'AAALwX///f4='),(6,'2010-07-02 14:31:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1031,'AAALwX///f8='),(6,'2010-07-02 14:31:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',1031,'AAALwX///gA='),(NULL,'2010-07-02 14:25:02','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.',1031,'AAALwX///gE='),(6,'2010-07-02 14:25:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1031,'AAALwX///gI='),(8,'2010-07-06 22:58:33','Patch Set 1:\n\nBreaks BlobStorageTest.testFailCorrupt2 in I09d0aafb3d15436e942acc4b722a63d35f58051a.',1032,'AAALwX///I0='),(1,'2010-07-07 00:30:56','Patch Set 1:\n\nFixed with test cases in I1c9642a82dbd76b69e607dceccf8b85dc869a3c1',1032,'AAALwX///IU='),(1,'2010-07-06 23:42:16','Patch Set 1:\n\nI suspect the issue is we don\'t check that the inflater consumed everything in the stream, which means we aren\'t checking the CRC that is embedded in the compressed data.  The test in question from EGit is chopping off only the last byte of the object file, which is part of the checksum but isn\'t necessary to inflate the content.\n\nI\'ll work up a fix for JGit and a test case for this particular issue.  We should always be checking that CRC at the end of the stream.',1032,'AAALwX///IY='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:43','Change has been successfully pushed.',1032,'AAALxH///9A='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:42','Change has been successfully pushed.',1033,'AAALxH///9E='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:42','Change has been successfully pushed.',1034,'AAALxH///9I='),(1,'2010-07-07 02:40:14','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1035,'AAALwX///IE='),(8,'2010-07-04 21:31:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1035,'AAALwX///VQ='),(8,'2010-07-04 21:27:03','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1035,'AAALwX///VU='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:42','Change has been successfully pushed.',1035,'AAALxH///9M='),(6,'2010-07-08 08:44:32','Patch Set 2: (6 inline comments)\n\n',1036,'AAALwX///AA='),(6,'2010-07-08 08:43:37','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1036,'AAALwX///AE='),(6,'2010-07-08 08:36:17','Uploaded patch set 5.',1036,'AAALwX///AI='),(4,'2010-07-02 22:55:48','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(8 inline comments)\n\n',1036,'AAALwX///aw='),(4,'2010-07-07 22:05:15','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1036,'AAALwX///BM='),(1,'2010-07-02 21:33:34','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1036,'AAALwX///eY='),(6,'2010-07-07 11:53:51','Uploaded patch set 4.',1036,'AAALwX///GM='),(6,'2010-07-07 10:34:29','Uploaded patch set 3.',1036,'AAALwX///Go='),(1,'2010-07-06 19:56:05','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\n',1036,'AAALwX///Kw='),(6,'2010-07-06 14:44:36','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\nThere is an issue with the timestamp. The timestamp of the DirCacheEntry is wiped out with smudgeRacilyClean in the method DirCache.writeTo().',1036,'AAALwX///NE='),(6,'2010-07-05 12:48:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',1036,'AAALwX///T0='),(6,'2010-07-12 12:21:45','Patch Set 6:\n\nrebased',1036,'AAALwX//+28='),(6,'2010-07-12 12:21:21','Uploaded patch set 6.',1036,'AAALwX//+3A='),(5,'2010-07-15 07:00:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1036,'AAALwX//+wk='),(5,'2010-07-14 09:38:20','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to master, tested again (also with Linux).\nSince all comments are answered and tests work well I will submit this this evening when I don\'t see new comments',1036,'AAALwX//+xc='),(5,'2010-07-14 09:35:33','Uploaded patch set 7.',1036,'AAALwX//+xg='),(3,'2010-07-02 21:09:57','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(7 inline comments)\n\nGenerally like the idea, but need to fix the commented code and the formatting.',1037,'AAALwX///eo='),(46,'2010-07-02 15:59:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',1037,'AAALwX///f0='),(46,'2010-07-02 16:04:38','Uploaded patch set 3.',1037,'AAALwX///fw='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:14:21','Uploaded patch set 7.',1037,'AAALwX///Oc='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:12:30','Uploaded patch set 6.',1037,'AAALwX///Og='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:14:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1037,'AAALwX///OU='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:14:48','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nPushed.',1037,'AAALwX///OY='),(46,'2010-07-05 06:45:49','Uploaded patch set 5.',1037,'AAALwX///Uo='),(46,'2010-07-05 06:44:13','Patch Set 3: (7 inline comments)\n\n',1037,'AAALwX///Us='),(46,'2010-07-05 06:42:18','Uploaded patch set 4.',1037,'AAALwX///VM='),(11,'2010-07-02 16:30:31','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1038,'AAALwX///fc='),(46,'2010-07-02 16:36:33','Uploaded patch set 3.',1038,'AAALwX///fQ='),(46,'2010-07-02 16:34:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',1038,'AAALwX///fU='),(4,'2010-07-09 14:11:03','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased onto current master\n- reformatted commit message and fixed some typos\n- verified tests\n- filed new bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=319394 detected by failing GitCloneWizardTest.updatesParameterFieldsInImportDialogWhenURIIsUpdated (GitCloneWizardTest.java: 78)',1038,'AAALwX//+40='),(4,'2010-07-09 13:45:36','Uploaded patch set 4.',1038,'AAALwX//+44='),(4,'2010-07-09 14:11:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1038,'AAALwX//+4w='),(46,'2010-07-02 16:34:11','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1039,'AAALwX///fY='),(1,'2010-07-02 21:53:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',1040,'AAALwX///d0='),(1,'2010-07-02 22:08:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1040,'AAALwX///dk='),(1,'2010-07-02 22:08:26','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1040,'AAALwX///do='),(11,'2010-07-02 22:07:39','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nThank you, Shawn. It looks great.',1040,'AAALwX///ds='),(11,'2010-07-02 21:43:02','Patch Set 2:\n\nShould the commit message provide more details on the reason for this change?',1040,'AAALwX///eU='),(1,'2010-07-02 18:49:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',1040,'AAALwX///fM='),(3,'2010-07-03 20:38:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1041,'AAALwX///V8='),(8,'2010-07-03 23:21:19','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1041,'AAALwX///Vg='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:42','Change has been successfully pushed.',1041,'AAALxH///9Q='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:31:54','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1042,'AAALwX///Q8='),(3,'2010-07-03 20:43:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1042,'AAALwX///V0='),(8,'2010-07-03 23:11:22','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1042,'AAALwX///Vo='),(1,'2010-07-03 17:56:48','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1042,'AAALwX///W4='),(1,'2010-07-03 17:55:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',1042,'AAALwX///XQ='),(3,'2010-07-03 09:28:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1042,'AAALwX///XY='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:42','Change has been successfully pushed.',1042,'AAALxH///9U='),(1,'2011-03-07 23:46:49','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nDead in the water, apparently nobody wants to do this.',1043,'AAAL3H///g8='),(1,'2010-07-02 21:49:57','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nStrictly an RFC/proof-of-concept patch.  Completely untested.  But offered in case someone wants to try and see this through.',1043,'AAALwX///eA='),(4,'2010-07-02 22:46:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1044,'AAALwX///bk='),(8,'2010-07-03 23:08:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1044,'AAALwX///Vs='),(3,'2010-07-03 20:13:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1044,'AAALwX///Wc='),(4,'2010-07-03 19:32:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1044,'AAALwX///Ws='),(3,'2010-07-03 09:22:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1044,'AAALwX///Xg='),(1,'2010-07-03 17:55:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',1044,'AAALwX///XI='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:41','Change has been successfully pushed.',1044,'AAALxH///9Y='),(3,'2010-07-03 20:31:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1045,'AAALwX///WA='),(4,'2010-07-03 19:33:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1045,'AAALwX///Wo='),(3,'2010-07-03 09:21:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1045,'AAALwX///Xk='),(1,'2010-07-03 17:55:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',1045,'AAALwX///XM='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:41','Change has been successfully pushed.',1045,'AAALxH///9c='),(8,'2010-07-03 23:04:23','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1046,'AAALwX///Vw='),(4,'2010-07-03 19:35:56','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1046,'AAALwX///Wk='),(3,'2010-07-03 20:20:35','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1046,'AAALwX///WQ='),(1,'2010-07-03 17:55:34','Uploaded patch set 3.',1046,'AAALwX///XA='),(3,'2010-07-03 07:21:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nAs a general observation, it\'s useful to decouple the text of the message to the variable name - this renaming technically is an API breakage because this is in a public class (I think ... the package doesn\'t have \'internal\') whereas you can always change the text in the properties file. Since we\'re in incubation, it doesn\'t matter - but either way, it probably makes sense for this class to be in an internal package rather than part of the API, if it\'s a public package (which it looks like it is).',1046,'AAALwX///YE='),(1,'2010-07-03 00:15:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1046,'AAALwX///ZA='),(8,'2010-07-03 00:12:36','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'d better if the subject line relates to the change, something like\n\nAmend commit: Refactor repository construction to builder class\n\nand then the referense to addressing issues',1046,'AAALwX///ZU='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:41','Change has been successfully pushed.',1046,'AAALxH///9g='),(3,'2010-07-03 20:30:16','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI wish Gerrit wouldn\'t make me re-review something if there were no changes in the last patchset. If the change has no differences, it shouldn\'t revoke my review from last time.',1047,'AAALwX///WE='),(4,'2010-07-03 19:36:55','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1047,'AAALwX///Wg='),(1,'2010-07-03 17:55:34','Uploaded patch set 3.',1047,'AAALwX///XE='),(3,'2010-07-03 07:22:36','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1047,'AAALwX///YA='),(1,'2010-07-03 00:15:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',1047,'AAALwX///ZE='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:41','Change has been successfully pushed.',1047,'AAALxH///9k='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1048,'AAALwn///6s='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:25:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1048,'AAALwn///70='),(2,'2010-07-05 18:38:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n+1 from Tech PMC',1048,'AAALwX///Ss='),(1,'2010-07-04 01:18:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1048,'AAALwX///VY='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:12:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1049,'AAALwn///84='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:12:16','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1049,'AAALwn///88='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:12:10','Uploaded patch set 4.',1049,'AAALwn///9A='),(NULL,'2010-07-16 17:11:54','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.',1049,'AAALwn///9E='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:11:53','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1049,'AAALwn///9I='),(3,'2010-07-07 08:32:06','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1049,'AAALwX///G4='),(8,'2010-07-07 05:10:14','Patch Set 3: IP review completed\n\n',1049,'AAALwX///H0='),(1,'2010-07-06 23:24:37','Patch Set 3:\n\nRobin, yes I fixed an infinite loop here.  There are conditions where inflate() returns 0 and yet finished() returns false, and so does needsInput().  This now crashes with a CorruptObjectException, rather than trying to call inflate again.\n\nAFAIK this can only happen when the inflation stream is corrupted and the bit sequence implies that a dictionary is required here, but we haven\'t supplied one to the Inflater.',1049,'AAALwX///Ig='),(1,'2010-07-06 23:23:06','Uploaded patch set 3.',1049,'AAALwX///Ik='),(8,'2010-07-05 21:35:44','Patch Set 2:\n\nI failed to get the infinte loop by truncating one of the 5900 byte long packfiles. At no length did it loop. Did you fix a loop here?\n\nI did complain about the inflate usage in some other piece of code, but that was a different pattern.',1049,'AAALwX///Sc='),(1,'2010-07-03 18:27:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1049,'AAALwX///W0='),(3,'2010-07-03 20:19:22','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nCan we fix the comment? Otherwise it looks much better than it was before :)',1049,'AAALwX///WU='),(3,'2010-07-03 07:47:44','Patch Set 1:\n\nThe problem with this is we have 3 almost identical methods, each of which does subtly different things, and they\'re already diverging. there\'s a mixture of int n and long n, and some arguments have final size and the others don\'t.\n\nThe only difference appears to be whether we write it into a temporary buffer, and what method gets called in the middle of the loop (fillInFromFile, fillInFromStream). We could parameterise that to the same function and delegate based on a switch (e.g. fillInFrom(FILE), fillInFrom(STREAM) and then code if( from==FILE)fillInFromFile() else (if from = STREAM) fillInFromStream() so we only need this implementation once. Or, we could pass in a class (FillInSource) and have that delegated to.\n\nEither way, I think the duplicate looping logic should be removed so that when there\'s a future error, we only do it once, and it can be detected appropriately (and means we only have one place to fix in the future).',1049,'AAALwX///X0='),(8,'2010-07-03 09:16:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nT',1049,'AAALwX///Xo='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1050,'AAALwn///6w='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:25:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1050,'AAALwn///74='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1051,'AAALwn///60='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:25:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1051,'AAALwn///8A='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1052,'AAALwn///64='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:25:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1052,'AAALwn///8E='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1053,'AAALwn///68='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:25:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1053,'AAALwn///8I='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1054,'AAALwn///7A='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:25:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1054,'AAALwn///8M='),(4,'2010-07-12 21:43:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1054,'AAALwX//+0A='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1055,'AAALwn///7E='),(1,'2010-07-16 17:25:19','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1055,'AAALwn///8Q='),(5,'2010-07-05 15:52:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',1056,'AAALwX///Tc='),(5,'2010-07-05 15:53:29','Patch Set 2:\n\njust added a tests for checking out uncached changes of tracked files',1056,'AAALwX///TU='),(5,'2010-07-11 11:44:33','Patch Set 3:\n\nStrange, I tried again a \"mvn clean install\" on my windows box and it worked. I tried also for the merge commit - on windows\nit works. So, I guess it is a plattform specific bug. I\'ll \ntry on linux now and see whether I can reproduce.',1056,'AAALwX//+30='),(8,'2010-07-10 22:57:59','Patch Set 3:\n\nThis is broken:\n\norg.eclipse.jgit.core--All-Tests (Java 6)\norg.eclipse.jgit.lib.WorkDirCheckout_ReadTreeTest\ntestDirectoryFileSimple(org.eclipse.jgit.lib.WorkDirCheckout_ReadTreeTest)\njunit.framework.AssertionFailedError\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.jgit.lib.ReadTreeTest.testDirectoryFileSimple(ReadTreeTest.java:277)\n\n\ntestCheckoutOutChanges(org.eclipse.jgit.lib.WorkDirCheckout_ReadTreeTest)\njunit.framework.AssertionFailedError: unexpected content for path foo in index. Expected: <bar>\n	at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)\n	at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.lib.ReadTreeTest.assertIndex(ReadTreeTest.java:674)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.lib.ReadTreeTest.testCheckoutOutChanges(ReadTreeTest.java:591)\n	at',1056,'AAALwX//+34='),(5,'2010-07-09 13:42:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1056,'AAALwX//+48='),(5,'2010-07-09 13:42:07','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI approve it know because some important proposals are waiting for it and this commit should not do a semantic change. It\'s only a refactoring preparing the base for later commits',1056,'AAALwX//+5A='),(4,'2010-07-09 12:15:35','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1056,'AAALwX//+5Y='),(5,'2010-07-08 23:45:41','Patch Set 3:\n\nrebased it to current master',1056,'AAALwX//+6U='),(5,'2010-07-08 23:44:17','Uploaded patch set 3.',1056,'AAALwX//+6Y='),(2,'2010-07-08 16:21:02','Patch Set 2:\n\nCan you rebase?',1056,'AAALwX//+9w='),(2,'2010-07-05 15:47:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1057,'AAALwX///Tg='),(2,'2010-07-05 15:47:17','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1057,'AAALwX///Tk='),(46,'2010-07-05 07:42:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',1057,'AAALwX///Uk='),(2,'2010-07-05 16:11:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1058,'AAALwX///S4='),(2,'2010-07-05 16:11:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1058,'AAALwX///S8='),(46,'2010-07-05 16:09:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1058,'AAALwX///TA='),(NULL,'2010-07-05 16:03:17','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.',1058,'AAALwX///TM='),(2,'2010-07-05 15:45:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nAnyone think we can accomplish this better via a icon decoration versus a label decoration? Other than that, I\'m fine with this change.',1058,'AAALwX///To='),(2,'2010-07-05 16:03:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI understand the desire to use text, but I think people notice their projects and files adorned more with a special icon (ie., the red conflict decoration) than a label. I opened a bug to consider this usability change in the future...\n\nhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/318917\n\nAlso, how many different repository states are there? MERGE, REBASE and SAFE?',1058,'AAALwX///TQ='),(46,'2010-07-05 15:53:05','Patch Set 1:\n\nStefan Lay and I have discussed the question icon vs. text decoration. The problem here is that we can only have ONE icon decoration at any given time, so we would have to replace that bottom right decoration with something different. And we would have to think of different icons for the different states...',1058,'AAALwX///TY='),(1,'2010-07-16 01:55:08','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLGTM, but I think there is a redundant line of code here that we can safely remove.  I assume you will be doing a subsequent change to handle racily clean stuff.',1059,'AAALwn////Y='),(5,'2010-07-16 08:06:58','Patch Set 6: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1059,'AAALwn///+0='),(5,'2010-07-16 08:25:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1059,'AAALwn///+k='),(5,'2010-07-16 08:25:42','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nremoved one duplicate if and rebased to master',1059,'AAALwn///+o='),(5,'2010-07-16 08:24:36','Uploaded patch set 7.',1059,'AAALwn///+s='),(4,'2010-07-08 00:11:40','Patch Set 4:\n\n- fixed some style nits\n- added support for updateNeeded flag\n\nI think we should also add proper handling of racy git problem detection',1059,'AAALwX///A8='),(4,'2010-07-08 00:09:02','Uploaded patch set 4.',1059,'AAALwX///BA='),(5,'2010-07-07 13:47:27','Patch Set 2: (7 inline comments)\n\n',1059,'AAALwX///FM='),(5,'2010-07-07 13:46:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',1059,'AAALwX///FQ='),(1,'2010-07-06 23:10:32','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1059,'AAALwX///Io='),(4,'2010-07-06 15:58:57','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',1059,'AAALwX///LU='),(5,'2010-07-05 23:12:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',1059,'AAALwX///QU='),(6,'2010-07-08 12:25:28','Patch Set 4:\n\nGreat, this can directly be used in EGit in DecoratableResourceAdapter for the dirty markers, can\'t it?',1059,'AAALwX//+/c='),(5,'2010-07-09 14:14:39','Uploaded patch set 6.',1059,'AAALwX//+4s='),(5,'2010-07-09 12:40:36','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\njust rebased it to get rid of a unneeded dependency',1059,'AAALwX//+5I='),(5,'2010-07-09 12:36:50','Uploaded patch set 5.',1059,'AAALwX//+5M='),(6,'2010-07-15 12:45:36','Patch Set 6:\n\nDoes this have to be adapted when you change the Racy Git Handling as discussed in http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/jgit-dev/msg00490.html?',1059,'AAALwX//+wc='),(5,'2010-07-15 16:47:02','Patch Set 6:\n\nyes, we will change this dirty-detection to look for racy git situations',1059,'AAALwX//+wU='),(44,'2010-07-14 13:51:06','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\ntested this change by using it for Label decoration (dirty marker). Worked pretty well.',1059,'AAALwX//+xA='),(NULL,'2010-07-19 15:19:31','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit a0f970efd82801604c167be9931f7b87cabd0a4c which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1060,'AAALw3///+A='),(46,'2010-07-19 15:19:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1060,'AAALw3///+E='),(46,'2010-07-19 15:18:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',1060,'AAALw3///+I='),(46,'2010-07-19 15:25:54','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased to master',1060,'AAALw3///90='),(46,'2010-07-19 15:25:33','Uploaded patch set 3.',1060,'AAALw3///94='),(NULL,'2010-07-19 15:19:36','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit a0f970efd82801604c167be9931f7b87cabd0a4c which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1060,'AAALw3///98='),(46,'2010-07-19 15:26:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1060,'AAALw3///9w='),(46,'2010-07-06 05:45:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nDuh. Not sure why I did this here. Of course this is the proper solution (I have replaced the literal with a constant, though). Looks like there are a lot of other tests that I\'ll have to check, too where wizard pages are involved. On those wizard pages, I wasn\'t able to find the buttons by their label, so I used the button(int) pattern a lot.... Or are the tests fine there?',1061,'AAALwX///O0='),(46,'2010-07-06 05:40:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',1061,'AAALwX///O4='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:18:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1061,'AAALwX///OA='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:18:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks for the catch.\n\nUI tests in general have to becareful when it comes to making assumptions on button order for OK/Cancel. The other buttons should be fine.',1061,'AAALwX///OE='),(74,'2010-07-05 22:23:31','Patch Set 1:\n\nBy default, GTK has another button ordering than Windows or Mac. But at least on Kubuntu, you should see the same unless you didn\'t specify the \"gtk-alternative-button-order=1\" in your ~/.gtkrc-2.0 file (see http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.5-200906111540/eclipse-news-part1.html - Alternate Button Order)\nFor me, the Cancel button is on the left and the OK button on the right.',1061,'AAALwX///RE='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:14:55','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhy haven\'t I seen the problem (Kubuntu 10.04)? Does GTK\nhave different button orderings between Gnome and KDE?',1061,'AAALwX///RM='),(74,'2010-07-05 19:17:58','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nAccidently slipped trough the cracks',1062,'AAALwX///So='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:04:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1063,'AAALwX///Oo='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:04:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1063,'AAALwX///Os='),(46,'2010-07-06 05:48:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1063,'AAALwX///Ow='),(49,'2010-07-22 19:16:36','Patch Set 6:\n\nAs you can see I\'ve split GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest into 3 separate classe:\n* GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest\n* GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest1\n* GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest2\n\nAnd now only shouldReturnSrcBranchAsBase from GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest1 fails sometimes. I don\'t really get why it such behavior occurs :|',1064,'AAALw3///0E='),(49,'2010-07-22 19:13:43','Uploaded patch set 6.',1064,'AAALw3///0I='),(49,'2010-07-22 15:51:12','Patch Set 5:\n\nThanks Robert, this is actually quite good idea. I\'ll try it out! ;)',1064,'AAALw3///1k='),(15,'2010-07-22 07:19:20','Patch Set 5:\n\nDariusz, perhaps you can \'bisect\' the failing tests?\n\nStart with running the failing test with all the tests, and then split the test suite into two. Run the GitResourceVariantTreeTest with one half. If it fails, you have eliminated half the tests as part of the failing combination. If it does not, run the failing test with the other half of the tests.\n\nWash, rinse, repeat and you\'ll know which minimal combination of tests fails, which should bring you closer to discovering the root issue.',1064,'AAALw3///3c='),(49,'2010-07-21 13:20:17','Patch Set 5:\n\nI\'ve got an assertation error in shouldReturnCommonAncestorAsBase:\norg.eclipse.team.core.TeamException: Missing unknown 5627e24a52af6d58955a333b785646b72f37d9eb\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitBaseResourceVariantTree.getRevCommit(GitBaseResourceVariantTree.java:52)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getResourceVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.commonAssertionsForBaseTree(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.java:197)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.shouldReturnCommonAncestorAsBase(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.java:133)\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.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.pde.internal.junit.runtime.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:62)\n	at org.eclipse.pde.internal.junit.runtime.CoreTestApplication.run(CoreTestApplication.java:23)\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.internal.app.EclipseAppContainer.callMethodWithException(EclipseAppContainer.java:587)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.app.EclipseAppHandle.run(EclipseAppHandle.java:198)\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.jgit.errors.MissingObjectException: Missing unknown 5627e24a52af6d58955a333b785646b72f37d9eb\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.revwalk.RevWalk.parseAny(RevWalk.java:778)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.revwalk.RevWalk.parseCommit(RevWalk.java:681)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitBaseResourceVariantTree.getRevCommit(GitBaseResourceVariantTree.java:44)\n	... 46 more\n\nand TeamException in shouldReturnRemoteTree:\norg.eclipse.team.core.TeamException: \n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitRemoteResourceVariantTree.getRevCommit(GitRemoteResourceVariantTree.java:46)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getResourceVariant(GitResourceVariantTree.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.shouldReturnRemoteTree(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.java:163)\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.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.pde.internal.junit.runtime.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:62)\n	at org.eclipse.pde.internal.junit.runtime.CoreTestApplication.run(CoreTestApplication.java:23)\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.internal.app.EclipseAppContainer.callMethodWithException(EclipseAppContainer.java:587)\n	at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.app.EclipseAppHandle.run(EclipseAppHandle.java:198)\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.jgit.errors.MissingObjectException: Missing unknown 5627e24a52af6d58955a333b785646b72f37d9eb\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.revwalk.RevWalk.parseAny(RevWalk.java:778)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.revwalk.RevWalk.parseCommit(RevWalk.java:681)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitRemoteResourceVariantTree.getRevCommit(GitRemoteResourceVariantTree.java:44)\n	... 45 more\n\nIt is very strange since those tests passes when they are run in \"single\" mode :|',1064,'AAALw3///4A='),(6,'2010-07-21 13:13:37','Patch Set 5:\n\nI do not get errors in GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.\nWhat kind of errors do you get?\n\nHowever, I sporadically get errors like pasted below, but not only on Synchronize tests and also without this change.\n\nContains: Error deleting resource \'/Project-1\' from the workspace tree.\norg.eclipse.core.internal.resources.ResourceException: Could not delete metadata for \'/Project-1\'.\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.LocalMetaArea.delete(LocalMetaArea.java:101)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.Project.deleteResource(Project.java:345)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.ResourceTree.deletedProject(ResourceTree.java:169)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.ResourceTree.internalDeleteProject(ResourceTree.java:438)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.ResourceTree.standardDeleteProject(ResourceTree.java:837)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.Resource.unprotectedDelete(Resource.java:1942)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.Resource.delete(Resource.java:786)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.Project.delete(Project.java:331)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestProject.dispose(TestProject.java:138)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.GitTestCase.tearDown(GitTestCase.java:51)\n\nand \njava.io.IOException: C:\\Users\\D044495\\Documents\\NWDS\\workspaces\\junit-workspace\\.git\\refs in use or undeletable\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestUtils.deleteRecursive(TestUtils.java:55)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.TestUtils.deleteRecursive(TestUtils.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.GitTestCase.tearDown(GitTestCase.java:52)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.ResetOperationTest.tearDown(ResetOperationTest.java:55)',1064,'AAALw3///4E='),(49,'2010-07-20 17:54:19','Uploaded patch set 5.',1064,'AAALw3///6I='),(49,'2010-07-20 17:53:26','Patch Set 4: (6 inline comments)\n\nIndeed unclosed streams was an issues in GitResourceVariantTreeTest, but they didn\'t cause failures in GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest. This problem still exists.\n\nI know about issue with synchronization when source branch isn\'t same as actually check-outed. But (as I write in comment) I\'ll prefer to fix it (or make a workaround for it) as a separate commit. *Maybe* when we will be integrated with Logical Model this issue can be solved properly.',1064,'AAALw3///6M='),(6,'2010-07-20 11:26:03','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\nThe test cases fail due to unclosed streams, see comments.\n\nThere is a general problem if you synchronize from a source which is not the checked-out branch. I tried it and got conflicts where no conflict should be because the coding always uses the workspace version of the resource as source version.\n\nIn my opinion we should always use the local workspace version as source version. This is also what the eclipse synchronize framework assumes. So you could simplify the SelectSynchronizeResourceDialog and just offer a destination selection.\n\nI think we should not use the HEAD, but the workspace version as source. If the resources are dirty or staged we should just mark that by displaying a label decoration in the synchronize view.',1064,'AAALw3///8Q='),(4,'2010-07-16 14:39:26','Patch Set 3:\n\nLooks much better but didn\'t have the time to fully review.\n\n- the commit message needs to be reworked since the IResource representations are gone\n- this change clearly needs a CQ',1064,'AAALwn///9s='),(49,'2010-07-16 15:52:58','Uploaded patch set 4.',1064,'AAALwn///9U='),(4,'2010-07-07 21:58:29','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(14 inline comments)\n\n',1064,'AAALwX///Bc='),(49,'2010-07-07 16:25:05','Patch Set 2:\n\nI know about compile errors in git.core.test. I\'ll fix test when finish with GitSynchView and GitRevourceVariantComparator implementation. The second reason of keeping this in current state is that API isn\'t stable (today I\'ll switch from File and FileTreeEntry onto RevFile and RevBlob).\n\nThis NPE I see for a first time. Could you be more specific when it occurs ?',1064,'AAALwX///DA='),(6,'2010-07-07 16:07:33','Patch Set 2:\n\nI get NullPointers when I synchronize:\n\njava.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getResourcePath(GitResourceVariantTree.java:242)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.getTree(GitResourceVariantTree.java:260)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.fetchMembersImpl(GitResourceVariantTree.java:173)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTree.fetchMembers(GitResourceVariantTree.java:91)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.AbstractResourceVariantTree.mergedMembers(AbstractResourceVariantTree.java:196)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.AbstractResourceVariantTree.collectChanges(AbstractResourceVariantTree.java:173)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.variants.AbstractResourceVariantTree.collectChanges(AbstractResourceVariantTree.java:113)m.core.synchronize.ISyncInfoTreeChangeEvent, org.eclipse.core.runtime.IProgressMonitor) line: 734	\n	org.eclipse.team.internal.ui.synchronize.CompressedFoldersModelProvider(org.eclipse.team.internal.ui.synchronize.SynchronizeModelProvider).handleChanges(org.eclipse.team.core.synchronize.ISyncInfoTreeChangeEvent, org.eclipse.core.runtime.IProgressMonitor) line: 192	\n	org.eclipse.team.internal.ui.synchronize.SynchronizeModelUpdateHandler$3.run() line: 500	\n	\n(resource is an instance of GitProject)\n\nand\n\nCaused by: java.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.resource.GitContainer.getFolder(GitContainer.java:149)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.resource.GitProject.getFolder(GitProject.java:101)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.resource.GitContainer.getFolder(GitContainer.java:97)\n	at org.eclipse.team.core.synchronize.SyncInfoTree.members(SyncInfoTree.java:357)',1064,'AAALwX///DI='),(6,'2010-07-07 15:41:24','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI get compile errors in project org.eclipse.egit.core.test, class org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantComparatorTest and org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitSyncInfoTest\n\nThey all look like the following:\nThe constructor GitBlobResourceVariant(IFile, Repository, null, null) is undefined.	\n\nThere are typos in commit message: a-n-cestor in Synch-ro-nize view.\n\nI\'ve not yet had a closer look at the content, but my first impression is that the change looks great.',1064,'AAALwX///DM='),(49,'2010-07-05 22:38:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1064,'AAALwX///Qs='),(49,'2010-07-05 22:38:32','Patch Set 1:\n\nThanks Robin ;)',1064,'AAALwX///Qw='),(8,'2010-07-05 22:29:39','Patch Set 1:\n\ns/obraining/obtaining',1064,'AAALwX///RA='),(49,'2010-07-05 22:23:30','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis change is *almost* ready for review. Currently I see four things to improve/work on:\n* GitSyncInfo class\n* GitResourceVariantComparator\n* handle multiple merge base points in GitBaseResourceVariant\n* fix test cases\n\nI\'ll send mail on jgit dev list with detailed description of first three points. Sending this to gerrit will make discussion easier ;)',1064,'AAALwX///RI='),(6,'2010-07-08 11:39:00','Patch Set 2:\n\nI do not understand why you introduce the Git* implementations of IResource et al.\n\nWhat exactly is the benefit of this?\n\nI would think that the subclasses of IResourceVariant like GitResourceVariant or GitFolderResourceVariant are used for the purpose to provide the remote content:\n\nJavaDoc of IResourceVariant\n * This interface is used by <code>SyncInfo</code> instances\n * to provide access to the base and remote resources that correspond to \n * a local resource.',1064,'AAALwX//+/0='),(6,'2010-07-08 12:10:31','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\nI will investigate on the NullPointer when you pushed the next change.',1064,'AAALwX//+/g='),(49,'2010-07-08 15:11:59','Patch Set 2: (8 inline comments)\n\n@Stefan Lay:\nIf I understood corectlly javadoc\'s for IResourceVariantTree.roots() and IResourceVariantTree.members() the IResource[] should be returned with contains resources in remote variant to handle this requirements I\'ve added git specific IResource implementations.',1064,'AAALwX//++I='),(49,'2010-07-09 23:33:51','Patch Set 2:\n\nI think that I\'ve finally have this change stabilized. It is fully migrated onto RevTree, RevBlob and TreeWalk classes.\n\nYes, Stefan you was right, IResource implementations were useless and in next patch set there will be removed.\n\nRight now there are four things that I\'ll be working on:\n* java doc\'s\n* exceptions handling and internationalization\n* performance\n* junits',1064,'AAALwX//+4Q='),(49,'2010-07-15 20:42:08','Patch Set 3: (2 inline comments)\n\nOnce again there are some strange behaviors of tests when they are run as a part of test suite. Currently only two test cases fails in test suite:\n* GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.shouldReturnCommonAncestorAsBase\n* GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.shouldReturnRemoteTree\n\nRest tests works fine no matter how they are launched.',1064,'AAALwX//+vg='),(49,'2010-07-15 20:35:56','Uploaded patch set 3.',1064,'AAALwX//+vs='),(49,'2010-07-15 20:31:51','Patch Set 2: (5 inline comments)\n\n',1064,'AAALwX//+vw='),(2,'2010-08-05 19:31:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1064,'AAALx3///9I='),(2,'2010-08-05 19:31:14','Patch Set 11: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good and IP review passed.\n\nThank you Dariusz and friends!',1064,'AAALx3///9M='),(2,'2010-08-05 19:30:20','Uploaded patch set 11.',1064,'AAALx3///9Q='),(6,'2010-08-03 13:39:20','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nI like this. Now the implementation is much clearer.',1064,'AAALxn///60='),(49,'2010-08-02 22:04:15','Uploaded patch set 10.',1064,'AAALxn///7Q='),(49,'2010-08-02 21:49:27','Patch Set 9:\n\nI\'ve use TPTP to test execution time of GitSyncInfo and SyncInfo. I\'ve run GitSyncInfo test and it seams that SyncInfo is around 1-2s faster then GitSyncInfo.\n\nI think that in this case, we should replace use of GitSyncInfo with default SyncInfo, therefore both classes (GitSyncInfo and GitSyncInfoTest) should be removed.',1064,'AAALxn///7U='),(49,'2010-08-02 14:52:10','Patch Set 9:\n\nI\'ve run GitSyncInfo test using original SyncInfo implementation and for now only one test case fails. I\'ll investigate this test case, maybe I\'ve made some logical mistake ...\n\nI\'m wondering with implementation would be more efficient and what would be time execution difference.',1064,'AAALxn///8c='),(2,'2010-08-02 14:25:12','Uploaded patch set 9.',1064,'AAALxn///8g='),(6,'2010-08-02 14:24:49','Patch Set 8: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nI think that in GitSyncInfo we do not need anything (E)Git specific. I would even assume that we could use plain SyncInfo. The handling of folders could be done in the Comparator (see ThreeWayResourceComparator as an example).\n\nIf that is done or it is not feasible to do it I would say we could finally submit the change.',1064,'AAALxn///8k='),(49,'2010-08-02 12:07:55','Patch Set 7: (3 inline comments)\n\nThat was \"only\" a \"merge issues\".',1064,'AAALxn///9c='),(6,'2010-08-02 11:24:24','Patch Set 7: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1064,'AAALxn///9s='),(49,'2010-08-02 12:08:19','Uploaded patch set 8.',1064,'AAALxn///9Y='),(49,'2010-07-29 18:51:03','Patch Set 7:\n\nrebased, problems with test cases still exists.',1064,'AAALxX///9s='),(49,'2010-07-29 18:49:53','Uploaded patch set 7.',1064,'AAALxX///9w='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:16:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1065,'AAALwX///OI='),(4,'2010-07-06 14:10:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',1065,'AAALwX///Ok='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:16:51','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks great.',1065,'AAALwX///OM='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:16:33','Uploaded patch set 3.',1065,'AAALwX///OQ='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:54:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1066,'AAALwX///Mg='),(2,'2010-07-06 14:54:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1 :D',1066,'AAALwX///Mk='),(1,'2010-07-06 19:37:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1067,'AAALwX///LM='),(1,'2010-07-06 19:37:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nOuch, that is an ugly bug.  Thanks for finding it.',1067,'AAALwX///LQ='),(46,'2010-07-07 06:32:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1068,'AAALwX///Ho='),(46,'2010-07-07 06:32:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks a lot. Note that I have replaced two Strings with the corresponding externalized ones (saving us from possible problems if we ever were to change them).',1068,'AAALwX///Hs='),(46,'2010-07-07 06:30:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1068,'AAALwX///Hw='),(NULL,'2010-07-07 13:12:59','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit 6a8270f35e4b6da9c453aae94a40b118d9aad9f1 which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1069,'AAALwX///F0='),(NULL,'2010-07-07 13:12:43','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit 6a8270f35e4b6da9c453aae94a40b118d9aad9f1 which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1069,'AAALwX///F4='),(46,'2010-07-07 13:12:43','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased to master',1069,'AAALwX///F8='),(46,'2010-07-07 13:23:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1069,'AAALwX///Fg='),(46,'2010-07-07 13:23:23','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased again, fixed whitespace.',1069,'AAALwX///Fk='),(46,'2010-07-07 13:22:49','Uploaded patch set 6.',1069,'AAALwX///Fo='),(46,'2010-07-07 13:21:50','Uploaded patch set 5.',1069,'AAALwX///Fs='),(NULL,'2010-07-07 13:13:02','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit 6a8270f35e4b6da9c453aae94a40b118d9aad9f1 which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1069,'AAALwX///Fw='),(46,'2010-07-07 13:12:13','Uploaded patch set 4.',1069,'AAALwX///GA='),(74,'2010-07-07 11:22:24','Uploaded patch set 3.',1069,'AAALwX///Gg='),(46,'2010-07-07 06:41:18','Patch Set 2:\n\nCorrected stack:\n\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 5000 ms.: The widget (of type \'Button\' and with mnemonic \'Next >\' and with style \'SWT.PUSH\') was not enabled.\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.AbstractSWTBot.waitForEnabled(AbstractSWTBot.java:609)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotButton.click(SWTBotButton.java:65)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest.testImportWizardGeneralProjectWithWorkingSet(GitRepositoriesViewTest.java:325)\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.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\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.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:595)',1069,'AAALwX///Hc='),(46,'2010-07-07 06:39:40','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nSee comment in code. The corresponding stack looks like this:\n\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find widget.\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.waitUntilWidgetAppears(SWTBotFactory.java:348)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotFactory.widget(SWTBotFactory.java:308)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBot.button(SWTBot.java:171)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBot.button(SWTBot.java:160)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest.testImportWizardGeneralProjectWithWorkingSet(GitRepositoriesViewTest.java:325)\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.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\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.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:595)\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 5000 ms.: Could not find widget matching: (of type \'Button\' and with mnemonic \'Next >\' and with style \'SWT.PUSH\')\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.SWTBotFactory.waitUntilWidgetAppears(SWTBotFactory.java:346)\n	... 32 more',1069,'AAALwX///Hg='),(74,'2010-07-06 21:44:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',1069,'AAALwX///Jw='),(4,'2010-07-07 21:59:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1070,'AAALwX///BY='),(8,'2010-07-07 21:28:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nsafe enough to self-approve...',1070,'AAALwX///CA='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:10:05','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nReplaced by rebasing I2459757a26f8c724b95468f9f38bac2ee172a932',1070,'AAALxH////Q='),(46,'2010-07-07 06:48:37','Patch Set 2:\n\nThe failing UI tests are addressed with http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1038',1071,'AAALwX///HU='),(8,'2010-07-06 22:45:09','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nWorks with JGit I2a63a496c0a7b04f0e5f27d588689c6d5e149d98',1071,'AAALwX///I8='),(8,'2010-07-06 23:31:50','Patch Set 2:\n\nNote. A number of SWTBot tests fail here, with or without this merge',1071,'AAALwX///Ic='),(8,'2010-07-06 22:06:00','Patch Set 2:\n\nforgot to check-in the version i ran',1071,'AAALwX///JM='),(8,'2010-07-06 22:05:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',1071,'AAALwX///JQ='),(8,'2010-07-06 22:03:48','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\nPending test failure resolution in I2a63a496c0a7b04f0e5f27d588689c6d5e149d98',1071,'AAALwX///JU='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:09:45','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nReplaced by rebasing I2459757a26f8c724b95468f9f38bac2ee172a932',1071,'AAALxH////U='),(1,'2010-07-07 02:41:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',1072,'AAALwX///H8='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:41','Change has been successfully pushed.',1072,'AAALxH///9o='),(1,'2010-07-07 02:41:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',1073,'AAALwX///IA='),(1,'2010-07-27 16:11:41','Change has been successfully pushed.',1073,'AAALxH///9s='),(46,'2010-07-16 14:43:52','Patch Set 2:\n\nI finally got around to testing this on Ubuntu (with low accuracy file system timstamps). I have created\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1139\nwith a fix.',1074,'AAALwn///9o='),(46,'2010-07-07 13:29:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1074,'AAALwX///Fc='),(6,'2010-07-07 14:00:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1074,'AAALwX///FE='),(6,'2010-07-07 14:00:00','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1074,'AAALwX///FI='),(6,'2010-07-07 13:07:25','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nDo not use GitIndex (see inline comment).\n\nCommit message width > 80.',1074,'AAALwX///GE='),(46,'2010-07-09 07:39:55','Patch Set 2:\n\nI found issues with TrackUntrackOperationTest if the test workspace was NOT cleared. I fixed this along with two other tests that were failing in this case on\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1086\nI could not reproduce the problems with the PushOperationTests, though.',1074,'AAALwX//+6E='),(8,'2010-07-08 21:08:00','Patch Set 2:\n\nUpon re-running the tests thay seem to succeed sometimes.\nRemvoving the test workspace seems to amek them fail again\nEclipse 3.5',1074,'AAALwX//+74='),