(44,'2010-10-21 15:35:28','Patch Set 1:\n\nDepends on JGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1779',1780,'AAALzX///4s='),(5,'2010-10-25 11:09:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1780,'AAALzX///z0='),(44,'2010-10-25 09:00:21','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1780,'AAALzX///z8='),(5,'2010-10-25 12:55:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1780,'AAALzX///zg='),(5,'2010-10-25 12:55:03','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1780,'AAALzX///zk='),(46,'2010-10-28 14:36:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1781,'AAALzX///sU='),(46,'2010-10-28 14:36:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1781,'AAALzX///sY='),(90,'2010-10-27 15:17:01','Patch Set 4:\n\nThanks for committing the patch.\n\nChris, I\'m \"indirectly\" using JGit in the MonoDevelop project. See http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html',1782,'AAALzX///tU='),(2,'2010-10-26 18:28:47','Patch Set 4:\n\nLooks good, thanks Lluis.\n\nBy the way, how did you come across this optimization? Are you using JGit somewhere?',1782,'AAALzX///u0='),(2,'2010-10-26 18:28:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1782,'AAALzX///u4='),(2,'2010-10-26 18:28:46','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Lluis.\n\nBy the way, how did you come across this optimization? Are you using JGit somewhere?',1782,'AAALzX///u8='),(2,'2010-10-26 18:28:07','Uploaded patch set 4.',1782,'AAALzX///vA='),(5,'2010-10-26 16:14:17','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nLooks ok to me now. Good work!',1782,'AAALzX///vc='),(2,'2010-10-26 18:27:28','Uploaded patch set 3.',1782,'AAALzX///vE='),(90,'2010-10-26 09:17:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',1782,'AAALzX///wc='),(5,'2010-10-25 16:24:10','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1782,'AAALzX///zA='),(11,'2010-10-23 06:53:50','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1783,'AAALzX///2c='),(11,'2010-10-23 06:49:11','Patch Set 2:\n\nWe have 4 projects with .java sources:\n- org.eclipse.egit.core\n- org.eclipse.egit.core.test\n- org.eclipse.egit.ui\n- org.eclipse.egit.ui.test\n\nProposed solution brings nothing at least for org.eclipse.egit.ui module where the same configuration should be copy-n-pasted.\n\nI think this should be moved to org.eclipse.egit.egit-parent, which is common for both org.eclipse.egit.core and org.eclipse.egit.ui',1783,'AAALzX///2k='),(11,'2010-10-23 06:49:04','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWe have 4 projects with .java sources:\n- org.eclipse.egit.core\n- org.eclipse.egit.core.test\n- org.eclipse.egit.ui\n- org.eclipse.egit.ui.test\n\nProposed solution brings nothing at least for org.eclipse.egit.ui module where the same configuration should be copy-n-pasted.\n\nI think this should be moved to org.eclipse.egit.egit-parent, which is common for both org.eclipse.egit.core and org.eclipse.egit.ui',1783,'AAALzX///2o='),(2,'2010-10-23 00:05:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1783,'AAALzX///2s='),(2,'2010-10-25 19:28:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1783,'AAALzX///x0='),(2,'2010-10-25 19:28:02','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nTook to heart Mykola\'s suggestion.',1783,'AAALzX///x4='),(2,'2010-10-25 19:27:35','Uploaded patch set 3.',1783,'AAALzX///x8='),(1,'2010-10-23 20:43:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1784,'AAALzX///1s='),(1,'2010-10-23 20:43:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1784,'AAALzX///1w='),(1,'2010-10-23 21:23:56','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1785,'AAALzX///1g='),(1,'2010-10-23 23:19:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1785,'AAALzX///1Q='),(1,'2010-10-23 23:14:23','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks.',1785,'AAALzX///1U='),(4,'2010-10-23 21:56:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',1785,'AAALzX///1Y='),(1,'2010-10-25 15:06:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1786,'AAALzX///zQ='),(1,'2010-10-25 15:06:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1786,'AAALzX///zU='),(1,'2010-10-23 23:27:51','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nMade for a demo, please don\'t submit this.  :-)',1787,'AAALzX///1I='),(1,'2010-10-23 23:22:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',1787,'AAALzX///1M='),(2,'2010-10-26 13:56:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1788,'AAALzX///v0='),(2,'2010-10-26 13:56:08','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWorks well, +1',1788,'AAALzX///v4='),(2,'2010-10-26 13:55:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1788,'AAALzX///v8='),(6,'2010-10-26 11:16:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1789,'AAALzX///wM='),(6,'2010-10-26 11:15:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWorks fine, looks good.\n\nIn a next step we could make the columns configurable.',1789,'AAALzX///wQ='),(4,'2010-10-25 23:24:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1790,'AAALzX///xI='),(4,'2010-10-25 23:24:17','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- verified on Mac OSX 10.6.4\n- rebased on current master',1790,'AAALzX///xM='),(4,'2010-10-25 23:15:15','Uploaded patch set 4.',1790,'AAALzX///xQ='),(44,'2010-10-25 19:49:36','Patch Set 3:\n\nTested on my MacBook. Looks fine.',1790,'AAALzX///xw='),(44,'2010-10-25 16:35:29','Patch Set 2:\n\nWorks on Linux.',1790,'AAALzX///y8='),(44,'2010-10-25 16:48:01','Patch Set 3:\n\nPatch Set 3: just added missing bug to commmit message.\n@Matthias: please check on the Mac',1790,'AAALzX///yk='),(44,'2010-10-25 16:46:36','Uploaded patch set 3.',1790,'AAALzX///yo='),(46,'2010-10-25 16:22:11','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n+1 on Windows',1790,'AAALzX///zI='),(44,'2010-10-25 16:02:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',1790,'AAALzX///zM='),(2,'2010-10-25 16:36:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1791,'AAALzX///y0='),(2,'2010-10-25 16:36:19','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is fine.',1791,'AAALzX///y4='),(2,'2010-10-25 16:42:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1792,'AAALzX///ys='),(2,'2010-10-25 16:42:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is fine.',1792,'AAALzX///yw='),(2,'2010-10-25 17:07:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1793,'AAALzX///yc='),(2,'2010-10-25 17:01:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',1793,'AAALzX///yg='),(2,'2010-10-25 17:07:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1793,'AAALzX///yY='),(2,'2010-10-25 17:31:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1794,'AAALzX///yQ='),(2,'2010-10-25 17:31:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+1, need this to start building',1794,'AAALzX///yU='),(2,'2010-10-25 18:07:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1795,'AAALzX///yI='),(2,'2010-10-25 18:07:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNeed this to produce our first update site.',1795,'AAALzX///yM='),(2,'2010-10-25 18:24:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1796,'AAALzX///yA='),(2,'2010-10-25 18:24:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nDone.',1796,'AAALzX///yE='),(4,'2010-10-26 07:39:36','Uploaded patch set 3.',1797,'AAALzX///w4='),(4,'2010-10-26 07:40:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1797,'AAALzX///wo='),(4,'2010-10-26 07:40:54','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1797,'AAALzX///ww='),(11,'2010-10-26 04:13:30','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1797,'AAALzX///xA='),(15,'2010-10-25 21:47:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',1797,'AAALzX///xg='),(4,'2010-10-26 07:40:22','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1798,'AAALzX///w0='),(4,'2010-10-26 07:39:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1798,'AAALzX///w8='),(4,'2010-10-26 07:40:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1798,'AAALzX///ws='),(11,'2010-10-26 04:09:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1798,'AAALzX///xE='),(2,'2010-10-25 22:10:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1799,'AAALzX///xc='),(2,'2010-10-25 22:11:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1799,'AAALzX///xU='),(2,'2010-10-25 22:11:11','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, needed for first full build.',1799,'AAALzX///xY='),(90,'2010-10-26 14:33:44','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1800,'AAALzX///vg='),(90,'2010-10-26 14:33:31','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nNot sure how this ended here. Please ignore.',1800,'AAALzX///vk='),(4,'2010-10-26 13:40:16','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nwhat is the purpose of this merge commit ?',1800,'AAALzX///wA='),(4,'2010-10-29 22:19:56','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nthanks Mathias, that\'s a huge improvement compared to manually editing conflict markers',1801,'AAALzX///m0='),(4,'2010-10-29 22:18:17','Uploaded patch set 7.',1801,'AAALzX///m4='),(4,'2010-10-29 22:20:31','Patch Set 7:\n\n- improved commit message',1801,'AAALzX///ms='),(4,'2010-10-29 22:19:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1801,'AAALzX///mw='),(46,'2010-10-29 13:30:14','Uploaded patch set 6.',1801,'AAALzX///n8='),(4,'2010-10-29 11:48:58','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nLGTM, this is a huge improvement :-)\n\nOnly thing left from my POV:\n- please rebase and update the commit message (it\'s outdated by now), I think it\'s ready for inclusion then',1801,'AAALzX///oE='),(46,'2010-10-28 10:58:51','Patch Set 4:\n\n1. Skipping \"ignored\" files and folders now\n2. Enable Merge Tool menu item also if repository state is REBASING*\n3. Use ORIG_HEAD instead of MERGE_HEAD as \"right\" version when repository state is not MERGING',1801,'AAALzX///s0='),(46,'2010-10-28 10:55:13','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1801,'AAALzX///s4='),(46,'2010-10-28 14:23:59','Uploaded patch set 5.',1801,'AAALzX///sc='),(46,'2010-10-27 11:52:15','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1801,'AAALzX///t0='),(46,'2010-10-27 11:51:59','Patch Set 3:\n\n* I think the merge editor should be immediately be opened on the pre-selected first conflicting file instead of requiring a double click\n\nDone.\n\n    * also when navigating the list of files in the upped part this should automatically show the merge editor in the lower part\n\nNot sure if this is at all possible\n\n    * when selecting \"show the version pre-merged by git\" I would prefer if this would only affect the hunks which have been automatically merged by git without conflicts, the conflicting hunks should be displayed in the same way as when the other option \"Use HEAD\" is selected since the traditional format with the conflict markers redundantly shows both conflicting changes in the left pane. This is redundant in the merge tool since the other version being merged in and the base version are already displayed in the other panes of the merge tool.\n\nDone.\n\n    * when clicking \"Copy current change from right to left\" I would prefer if the change from the right would overwrite the change on the left instead of appending it. Same for \"Copy all changes from right to left\". Maybe we could have another action \"Append change from right to left\".\n\nNot possible with this framework as far as I can say.',1801,'AAALzX///t4='),(46,'2010-10-28 10:54:40','Uploaded patch set 4.',1801,'AAALzX///tA='),(4,'2010-10-27 15:03:37','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nThanks for the improvements.\n\nI tried with a real world merge trying to resolve the conflicts raised when I (using native git) merged the current egit origin/master (cb2e630b) into egit change 1692, patchset 1 (3e494ae2) and found some more issues. \nI started the merge tool with the option HEAD (unmerged) :\n- the progress bar reveals that the merge tool seems not to skip class files under the bin folder which could be skipped according to ignore rules\n- the merge tool displays files which are displayed as \"staged\" in the package explorere but they don\'t show any difference in the merge tool\n- when closing the merge tool and trying to re-open it I can\'t since the merge tool menu entry is grayed out\n- to try again I did a hard reset and retried - this time using egit to merge - interestingly egit claims that it can do the merge without conflicts, I suspect this points at some error in egit\'s merge\n- so I again reset and retried - again using native git for the merge - and using the \"pre-merged\" option. Looking at the Java Structure compare for UIText.java this looks not consistent with what the text compare shows',1801,'AAALzX///tc='),(4,'2010-10-27 15:12:05','Patch Set 3:\n\nI also found that when trying to use the merge tool on the result of rebase origin/master on the same scenario I cannot use the merge tool since the menu entry is grayed out. What\'s the difference compared to merge ?',1801,'AAALzX///tY='),(4,'2010-10-26 22:43:33','Patch Set 2: Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n- some files have no license header\n- the merge tool view should get a more useful title, currently it\'s just \"Compare\", instead we could show \'[egit] Merging branch \"xyz\" into \"master\" \' displaying the repository and the branches being merged\"',1801,'AAALzX///uc='),(46,'2010-10-27 11:48:29','Uploaded patch set 3.',1801,'AAALzX///uE='),(4,'2010-10-26 22:33:38','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- rebased to current master\n- resolved resulting conflict\n\n- this is already a great improvement compared to editing plain conflict markers :-)\n\n- I think the merge editor should be immediately be opened on the pre-selected first conflicting file instead of requiring a double click\n- also when navigating the list of files in the upped part this should automatically show the merge editor in the lower part\n\n- when selecting \"show the version pre-merged by git\" I would prefer if this would only affect the hunks which have been automatically merged by git without conflicts, the conflicting hunks should be displayed in the same way as when the other option \"Use HEAD\" is selected since the traditional format with the conflict markers redundantly shows both conflicting changes in the left pane. This is redundant in the merge tool since the other version being merged in and the base version are already displayed in the other panes of the merge tool.\n\n- when clicking \"Copy current change from right to left\" I would prefer if the change from the right would overwrite the change on the left instead of appending it. Same for \"Copy all changes from right to left\". Maybe we could have another action \"Append change from right to left\".',1801,'AAALzX///uo='),(4,'2010-10-26 22:19:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',1801,'AAALzX///us='),(46,'2010-10-26 11:05:16','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nAt the moment, just inended as Request For Feedback!!!',1801,'AAALzX///wU='),(2,'2010-10-26 12:56:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1802,'AAALzX///wE='),(2,'2010-10-26 12:56:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple fix.',1802,'AAALzX///wI='),(1,'2010-10-26 16:20:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1803,'AAALzX///vU='),(1,'2010-10-26 16:20:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1803,'AAALzX///vY='),(1,'2010-10-27 14:57:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1804,'AAALzX///tg='),(1,'2010-10-27 14:57:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1804,'AAALzX///tk='),(46,'2010-10-27 10:05:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1805,'AAALzX///uQ='),(46,'2010-10-27 10:04:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1805,'AAALzX///uU='),(44,'2010-10-27 10:46:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1806,'AAALzX///uI='),(44,'2010-10-27 10:46:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. UI Tests working again.',1806,'AAALzX///uM='),(4,'2010-10-29 11:31:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1807,'AAALzX///oQ='),(4,'2010-10-29 11:31:28','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',1807,'AAALzX///oU='),(4,'2010-10-29 11:30:37','Uploaded patch set 4.',1807,'AAALzX///oY='),(46,'2010-10-28 13:18:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',1807,'AAALzX///sw='),(46,'2010-10-27 12:59:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1807,'AAALzX///ts='),(6,'2010-11-12 15:13:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1808,'AAAL0H///08='),(6,'2010-11-12 15:13:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1808,'AAAL0H///1A='),(44,'2010-11-11 14:33:25','Uploaded patch set 2.',1808,'AAAL0H///4A='),(44,'2010-11-11 14:22:50','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nIn case of nested projects you can get two containers for the a given folder:\n\nProject1 [not shared]\n    Project2 [shared]\n        \nYou start with an AdaptableFileTreeIterator and hit the first folder in a shared project: the folder of project2. For this folder 2 containers exist, one belonging to project 1 and one belonging to project2.\nI will drop the \"innermost\" logic and add a check if the container is shared with Git.',1808,'AAAL0H///4E='),(6,'2010-10-29 12:32:05','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nWhy do you need this logic about the innermost project? For the first time you hit an open project with the Iterator (in this case you have just one project as container in the array) you return a ContainerTreeIterator. The method createSubtreeIterator is overwritten on ContainerTreeIterator, therefore you will never get into the situation that you have more than one projects as container.\n\nI wonder if we should take into accont only shared projects, but I\'m not sure whether that makes a difference.\n\nWhat about adding a test case?',1808,'AAALzX///oA='),(5,'2010-10-28 19:39:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',1809,'AAALzX///p0='),(1,'2010-10-28 19:54:36','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1809,'AAALzX///pc='),(5,'2010-10-28 19:44:08','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1809,'AAALzX///pg='),(5,'2010-10-28 19:43:51','Uploaded patch set 3.',1809,'AAALzX///pk='),(1,'2010-10-28 19:54:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1809,'AAALzX///pY='),(4,'2010-10-28 14:50:58','Patch Set 1:\n\nI think Chris meant\n0c017188b4d41cc80c297e35097095026734b3d4\nthe commit in the message isn\'t legal since it\'s only 38 digits, so he probably missed the first 2 digits when copying',1809,'AAALzX///sE='),(1,'2010-10-28 14:21:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nI think the code looks fine, my major issue is the unknown commit SHA-1 in the message trying to use it to explain the problem.',1809,'AAALzX///sg='),(1,'2010-11-09 22:14:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1810,'AAAL0H///+k='),(1,'2010-11-09 22:14:10','Patch Set 3: IP review completed\n\nIP review completed and approved.',1810,'AAAL0H///+o='),(1,'2010-11-08 22:56:55','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nLooks good now, thanks.  Started IP review process under CQ 4632 / Bugzilla bug 329715.',1810,'AAALz3////0='),(79,'2010-11-06 12:54:49','Uploaded patch set 3.',1810,'AAALzn///48='),(1,'2010-11-05 21:28:10','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nActually looks good, the only issue is reusing Repository.shortenRefName instead of duplicating the code.',1810,'AAALzn///5c='),(79,'2010-11-03 20:37:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1810,'AAALzn///80='),(79,'2010-11-03 20:41:27','Patch Set 2:\n\nThis patch set addresses most of Shawn\'s comments. The case with the pull command is handled by adding another list of refs.\n\nThe TODO about shortenRefName is still open though. Shawn, can you decide what we should do there?',1810,'AAALzn///8w='),(79,'2010-10-29 11:05:00','Patch Set 1: (8 inline comments)\n\nReplies to Shawn\'s comments.',1810,'AAALzX///oc='),(79,'2010-10-29 11:34:21','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nAdditional comment.',1810,'AAALzX///oI='),(1,'2010-10-28 16:09:32','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(8 inline comments)\n\n',1810,'AAALzX///q8='),(1,'2010-10-28 15:47:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1811,'AAALzX///rk='),(1,'2010-10-28 15:47:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1811,'AAALzX///ro='),(1,'2010-10-28 15:47:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1812,'AAALzX///rs='),(1,'2010-10-28 15:47:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1812,'AAALzX///rw='),(1,'2010-10-28 15:46:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1813,'AAALzX///r0='),(1,'2010-10-28 15:46:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1813,'AAALzX///r4='),(1,'2010-10-28 15:46:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1814,'AAALzX///r8='),(1,'2010-10-28 15:46:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1814,'AAALzX///sA='),(4,'2010-11-24 23:21:59','Patch Set 4: (16 inline comments)\n\n',1815,'AAAL0n///1I='),(4,'2010-11-24 23:21:16','Patch Set 7:\n\n- addressed comments\n- rebased to current master',1815,'AAAL0n///1M='),(4,'2010-11-24 23:16:12','Uploaded patch set 7.',1815,'AAAL0n///1Q='),(4,'2010-11-24 23:11:13','Uploaded patch set 6.',1815,'AAAL0n///1U='),(4,'2010-11-24 23:03:57','Uploaded patch set 5.',1815,'AAAL0n///1Y='),(1,'2010-11-23 23:22:31','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(15 inline comments)\n\n',1815,'AAAL0n///4w='),(4,'2010-11-19 23:34:45','Uploaded patch set 4.',1815,'AAAL0n///90='),(4,'2010-11-19 23:29:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',1815,'AAAL0n///94='),(4,'2010-11-19 23:39:28','Patch Set 2: (14 inline comments)\n\n',1815,'AAAL0n///9w='),(8,'2010-11-27 20:38:19','Patch Set 8: No score\n\nYou do provide some new functionality, so its not just performance, and that contradicts my previous objections.',1815,'AAAL0n///tA='),(8,'2010-11-27 17:05:35','Patch Set 8: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nNow, I didn\'t read the code because of Bug 331273 (from the patches in the thread \"Avoiding stat calls (again)\".\n\nThe main issue with performance  still is that we do a lot of unnecessary work which we should fix instead of making the unnecessary work faster.\n\nDo we have numbers to support the need for this added complexity?',1815,'AAAL0n///tE='),(1,'2010-11-27 01:37:58','Patch Set 8: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI think this is ready to submit.  But we shouldn\'t store binary object files:\n\n  $ file org.eclipse.jgit.macosx_x86_64/native/libjgitnative.jnilib\n  org.eclipse.jgit.macosx_x86_64/native/libjgitnative.jnilib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64\n\nThe build should be integrated into the master Maven build, and we should also support Linux x86 and x86_64 builds, but we can address those with follow-up commits.',1815,'AAAL0n///ts='),(4,'2010-11-25 23:47:18','Patch Set 8:\n\n- pass relative path to native lstat() to avoid unnecessary traversal up to the file system root\n- rebased to current master',1815,'AAAL0n///ws='),(4,'2010-11-25 23:45:04','Patch Set 7: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1815,'AAAL0n///ww='),(4,'2010-11-25 23:43:30','Uploaded patch set 8.',1815,'AAAL0n///xA='),(1,'2010-11-25 17:53:22','Patch Set 7:\n\nWhat is left to remove the RFC status?',1815,'AAAL0n///zI='),(1,'2010-11-25 17:52:55','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1815,'AAAL0n///zM='),(1,'2010-12-15 04:27:03','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI think I am pretty happy with this version.  Since its so different from what Matthias offered earlier, I changed the author to myself so blame comes back at me when the inevitable bug gets filed with the project.  :-)\n\nIt would be nice if we could automatically disable the libjgit_native module from our build on platforms we don\'t yet support, but I don\'t know how to make Maven do that without driving myself insane.  I guess this is room for improvement in another commit.\n\nWe now use the platform default encoding for String->char* when making the lstat(2) call.  This is important because the UTF8 function Matthias was using before doesn\'t actually use valid UTF-8, its the fake Java UTf-8 that gets used when working with DataInputStream, or when symbol names in class files.  Unfortunately its more complicated because we need a utility function to call back into the JVM and invoke String.getBytes(), then copy from the returned byte[] into a char* obtained from malloc.\n\nThis is tested on both Mac OS X (10.6) and Linux and seems to work for both 32 bit and 64 bit JVMs on the latter.\n\nPlease review and post comments so we can get this change moving forward again.',1815,'AAAL1n///8M='),(1,'2010-12-15 03:51:07','Uploaded patch set 10.',1815,'AAAL1n///8Q='),(1,'2010-12-14 08:48:51','Patch Set 9: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis really still isn\'t ready.  I took Matthias\' native work and hacked it apart, and put it back together a little.  In JNI land we now fill out the LStat object directly, rather than allocating an intermediate int[].  We also cache handles to the LStat object type, but we should also do this for the common error class types to make constructing the exception quicker.\n\nBuild works under Maven 2.2.1 on Mac OS X.  I\'ll have to test on Linux tomorrow.  Copying the generated libjgit_native.jnilib into the target plugin is a bit messy.  I really don\'t know how the JGit feature will work for a P2 build when we need to generate it on different platforms and merge the results, since some plugins aren\'t buildable on every platform.\n\nThe Mac OS X build now requires the Java SDK, which is part of Xcode and is in /Developer. But that shouldn\'t be a huge problem, you probably need Xcode to get gcc anyway.',1815,'AAAL1n///9o='),(1,'2010-12-14 08:44:44','Uploaded patch set 9.',1815,'AAAL1n///9s='),(4,'2011-01-20 23:45:24','Patch Set 12: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased and resolved conflicts\n- adapted to junit 4\n- flipped versions to 0.11\n- verified on Mac OSX 10.6.6',1815,'AAAL2n///k4='),(4,'2011-01-20 23:36:41','Uploaded patch set 12.',1815,'AAAL2n///k8='),(4,'2011-01-20 23:15:28','Uploaded patch set 11.',1815,'AAAL2n///lA='),(1,'2010-11-08 21:39:54','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(16 inline comments)\n\nMuch nicer than the prior iteration I read, but many more comments inline.',1815,'AAALzn///2U='),(4,'2010-11-08 17:05:10','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis now works on Mac :-) \n\nThe FSAccessJava needs to be enhanced to support file mode and some minor cleanup is left.\n\nThe reason why OSGi failed to load the shared library in the previous version was that I had defined Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment: J2SE-1.5 in the fragment containing the shared library without having defined that JRE in Eclipse ! I accidentally removed this entry since I moved all Java code to org.eclipse.jgit and all of a sudden loading the native library worked. This looks really odd ...\n\nWith Java bundles this is causing no problem, apparently PDE then falls back using the defined Java 6 environment.\n\nAs a next step we should decide on the platforms we want to support and how to build the native code (I have no recent experience on that).',1815,'AAALzn///3k='),(4,'2010-11-08 16:57:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',1815,'AAALzn///3o='),(4,'2010-10-30 00:04:13','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1815,'AAALzX///mE='),(1,'2010-10-29 22:58:23','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1815,'AAALzX///mY='),(4,'2010-10-29 08:14:00','Patch Set 1:\n\nI tried with the shared library in the bundle root as well but this didn\'t fix the problem.\n\nOne strange thing I observed : I found that the manifest entry for\nthe native code\n\nBundle-NativeCode: /native/macosx/x86_64/libjgitnative.jnilib;\n	 osname=macosx;\n	 processor=x86_64;\n\nhas to end with a semicolon, but the OSGi spec says this should not be necessary. When removing the semicolon I get an error message that the bundle Bundle-NativeCode_0.0.0 cannot be resolved. Maybe this points at a bug. With the manifest as posted here org.eclipse.jgit can\'t load the JNI class in the native fragment so I am seeing ClassNotFoundException.',1815,'AAALzX///pE='),(17,'2010-10-29 05:11:28','Patch Set 1:\n\nDid you try it with the library in the fragment root? I read that some guys had issues when  the library was located within a folder. But that doesn\'t really make sense to me.',1815,'AAALzX///pI='),(4,'2010-10-28 22:33:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nSomething is wrong with hooking the native fragment onto org.eclipse.jgit, if I put all the code into one project it works but I am lost separating the platform dependent code into a fragment.',1815,'AAALzX///pM='),(4,'2010-10-29 08:29:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1816,'AAALzX///o8='),(4,'2010-10-29 08:29:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1816,'AAALzX///pA='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:50:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1817,'AAALzX///m8='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:50:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1817,'AAALzX///nA='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:49:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1818,'AAALzX///nE='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:49:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1818,'AAALzX///nI='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:48:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1819,'AAALzX///nM='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:48:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1819,'AAALzX///nQ='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:47:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1820,'AAALzX///nU='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:47:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1820,'AAALzX///nY='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:43:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1821,'AAALzX///nc='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:43:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1821,'AAALzX///ng='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:43:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1822,'AAALzX///nk='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:43:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1822,'AAALzX///no='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:24:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1823,'AAALzX///jA='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:24:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1823,'AAALzX///jE='),(79,'2010-10-31 23:04:13','Patch Set 2:\n\nNote that I couldn\'t figure out how to only filter this warning in the constructor (tried BlockInputStream, <init>, ...), so the whole class is filtered.',1823,'AAALzX///kc='),(79,'2010-10-31 23:02:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',1823,'AAALzX///kg='),(79,'2010-10-31 16:32:07','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1823,'AAALzX///kk='),(4,'2010-10-30 00:07:45','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1823,'AAALzX///l8='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:43:05','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1823,'AAALzX///ns='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:41:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1824,'AAALzX///n0='),(1,'2010-10-29 14:41:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1824,'AAALzX///n4='),(4,'2010-11-04 21:50:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',1825,'AAALzn///70='),(4,'2010-11-04 21:51:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1825,'AAALzn///7s='),(4,'2010-11-04 21:51:51','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebase onto current master\n- fixed some typos in javadoc',1825,'AAALzn///7w='),(46,'2010-11-02 10:04:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1825,'AAALzn///98='),(46,'2010-11-02 10:20:46','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1825,'AAALzn///9g='),(4,'2010-10-30 22:20:20','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nGood idea to clean this up.\n\nThis change has quite a number of pure formatting changes, maybe these could be factored out into a separate change only having formatting changes. Also the new menu contributions don\'t seem to be related to this refactoring but deserve another change',1825,'AAALzX///lA='),(2,'2011-03-02 16:31:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1826,'AAAL3H///xk='),(2,'2011-03-02 16:31:52','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nYour tests now pass in ShowInfoHandler Paul.\n\nCan you please clean things up and get what you need so you can drop the shell scripts when you release?',1826,'AAAL3H///xo='),(2,'2011-03-02 16:31:11','Uploaded patch set 3.',1826,'AAAL3H///xs='),(4,'2010-11-01 22:43:07','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(31 inline comments)\n\n',1826,'AAALzn///+A='),(2,'2010-11-01 15:26:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1826,'AAALzX///kQ='),(2,'2010-11-01 12:38:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1827,'AAALzX///kU='),(2,'2010-11-01 12:37:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1827,'AAALzX///kY='),(1,'2010-10-30 01:07:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1828,'AAALzX///l0='),(1,'2010-10-30 01:07:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1828,'AAALzX///l4='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:09:33','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1829,'AAALzX///j4='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:15:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1829,'AAALzX///jc='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:15:04','Uploaded patch set 2.',1829,'AAALzX///js='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:15:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1829,'AAALzX///jY='),(5,'2010-10-30 15:45:47','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1829,'AAALzX///lk='),(4,'2010-10-30 22:04:55','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nsuccessfully verified with jgit diff on the cases mentioned in bug 328895\n\nfix the comments and this is ready for submit',1829,'AAALzX///lQ='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:15:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1830,'AAALzX///jM='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:15:04','Uploaded patch set 2.',1830,'AAALzX///jo='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:15:32','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1830,'AAALzX///jU='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:10:05','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1830,'AAALzX///jw='),(5,'2010-10-31 09:24:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI agree also that we should remove this kind of test from our standard tests unit tests executed always. And of course its much better to test with real data instead of generated test data like here.\n\nThere is one aspect for which we can enrich debug-diff-algorithms to cover what we delete here. DiffPerformance test did not \"test\" the absolute performance of a diff algorithm but tested how much the overall runtime increases if we increase the size of the diffed texts. Just to see whether we are working with O(n*n) or O(n*log(n)) or something different. Would be nice to have\nsuch tests also for real data.',1830,'AAALzX///ks='),(4,'2010-10-30 21:58:04','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nLGTM',1830,'AAALzX///lY='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:15:31','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1831,'AAALzX///jg='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:15:04','Uploaded patch set 3.',1831,'AAALzX///jk='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:15:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1831,'AAALzX///jQ='),(4,'2010-10-30 21:53:54','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nverified with jgit diff on the cases mentioned in bug 328895',1831,'AAALzX///lg='),(1,'2010-10-30 02:44:04','Uploaded patch set 2.',1831,'AAALzX///lw='),(2,'2010-11-10 22:21:47','Uploaded patch set 2.',1832,'AAAL0H///5M='),(5,'2010-11-12 23:23:12','Patch Set 2: (6 inline comments)\n\nthat command is urgently needed. thanks!',1832,'AAAL0H///xY='),(5,'2010-11-18 11:03:02','Patch Set 3: (3 inline comments)\n\nsorry for answering so late. I am on a full week training and dont have much jgit time.',1832,'AAAL0n///+o='),(2,'2010-11-23 17:27:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1832,'AAAL0n///6E='),(2,'2010-11-23 17:27:31','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI\'m happy with the state of this now.',1832,'AAAL0n///6I='),(2,'2010-11-22 21:53:57','Uploaded patch set 5.',1832,'AAAL0n///7M='),(2,'2010-11-22 15:34:33','Uploaded patch set 4.',1832,'AAAL0n///8w='),(2,'2010-11-15 01:19:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',1832,'AAAL0X///+Q='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:07:30','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1833,'AAAL0H///20='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:07:16','Uploaded patch set 5.',1833,'AAAL0H///24='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:07:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1833,'AAAL0H///2w='),(9,'2010-11-05 15:28:21','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1833,'AAALzn///6A='),(94,'2010-11-05 05:07:14','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1833,'AAALzn///6I='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:35','Uploaded patch set 4.',1833,'AAALzn///6k='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:15:06','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nOK, I\'m finally happy with this series.  I\'m happy to address reviewer comments, but I think the notes topic implements the low-level stuff we need to get notes working in JGit.\n\nWe still need to implement merging of notes branches, because the merge strategy needs to understand the fanout format and deal with one side having fanout where the other side is still at a leaf layout.  But that can come along later... this is at least enough to efficiently read notes produced by C Git, and for Gerrit Code Review to start exporting its review metadata as a notes branch.',1833,'AAALzn///6M='),(1,'2010-11-05 01:27:16','Uploaded patch set 3.',1833,'AAALzn///7M='),(1,'2010-11-04 19:49:39','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1833,'AAALzn///8c='),(9,'2010-11-04 14:54:32','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\nSee the inline comment. Otherwise Ok.',1833,'AAALzn///8k='),(9,'2010-11-04 20:47:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1833,'AAALzn///8Q='),(94,'2010-11-01 21:04:48','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1833,'AAALzX///j8='),(1,'2010-11-01 21:18:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',1833,'AAALzX///jI='),(4,'2010-11-04 21:00:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1834,'AAALzn///8E='),(4,'2010-11-04 21:00:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1834,'AAALzn///8I='),(4,'2010-11-04 21:00:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',1834,'AAALzn///8M='),(4,'2010-11-04 21:19:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1835,'AAALzn///74='),(4,'2010-11-04 21:19:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1835,'AAALzn///78='),(4,'2010-11-04 21:16:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',1835,'AAALzn///8A='),(46,'2010-11-02 10:06:17','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWrong ancestor',1836,'AAALzn///94='),(46,'2010-11-02 10:06:31','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWrong ancestor',1837,'AAALzn///90='),(46,'2010-11-02 10:06:45','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWrong ancestor',1838,'AAALzn///9w='),(4,'2010-11-04 22:13:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1839,'AAALzn///7g='),(4,'2010-11-04 22:13:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased onto current master',1839,'AAALzn///7k='),(4,'2010-11-04 22:12:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',1839,'AAALzn///7o='),(2,'2010-11-03 17:24:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1840,'AAALzn///84='),(2,'2010-11-03 17:24:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1840,'AAALzn///88='),(49,'2010-11-02 17:13:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1841,'AAALzn///9M='),(49,'2010-11-02 17:13:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks for fix this Mathias.',1841,'AAALzn///9Q='),(1,'2010-11-05 21:38:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1842,'AAALzn///5M='),(1,'2010-11-05 21:38:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1842,'AAALzn///5U='),(1,'2010-11-05 21:38:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1843,'AAALzn///5Q='),(1,'2010-11-05 21:38:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1843,'AAALzn///5Y='),(2,'2010-11-10 22:53:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems reasonable.',1844,'AAAL0H///40='),(2,'2010-11-10 22:53:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1844,'AAAL0H///4w='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1844,'AAALzn///6U='),(1,'2010-11-05 22:03:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1845,'AAALzn///5E='),(1,'2010-11-05 22:03:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1845,'AAALzn///5I='),(4,'2010-11-07 15:22:44','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nthanks Chris',1846,'AAALzn///40='),(5,'2010-11-07 14:12:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',1846,'AAALzn///44='),(4,'2010-11-07 15:22:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1846,'AAALzn///4w='),(4,'2010-11-06 00:18:33','Patch Set 1:\n\nas discussed: the test case http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1845 doesn\'t fail without this fix so we need a better test case to prove that the fix works.',1846,'AAALzn///5A='),(4,'2010-11-04 23:03:23','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI think we should have a test case covering this case',1846,'AAALzn///7Q='),(2,'2010-11-10 23:00:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1847,'AAAL0H///4o='),(2,'2010-11-10 23:00:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1847,'AAAL0H///4s='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1847,'AAALzn///6Q='),(2,'2010-11-11 15:52:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1848,'AAAL0H///28='),(2,'2010-11-11 15:52:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1848,'AAAL0H///3A='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1848,'AAALzn///6g='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:28:25','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased and conflict free, +1',1849,'AAAL0H///2c='),(94,'2010-11-11 16:27:32','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1849,'AAAL0H///2g='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:24:34','Uploaded patch set 4.',1849,'AAAL0H///2k='),(NULL,'2010-11-11 16:12:34','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 4 of I93704bd8, however the current patch set is 5.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1849,'AAAL0H///2o='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:12:34','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1849,'AAAL0H///2s='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:28:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1849,'AAAL0H///2Y='),(94,'2010-11-05 18:05:44','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1849,'AAALzn///58='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:34','Uploaded patch set 3.',1849,'AAALzn///6o='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:07:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',1849,'AAALzn///7E='),(1,'2010-11-11 18:57:45','Uploaded patch set 4.',1850,'AAAL0H///1s='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:30:46','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nNeed to rebase and fix conflicts.',1850,'AAAL0H///2U='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:29:30','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1850,'AAAL0X////0='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:29:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1850,'AAAL0X////w='),(94,'2010-11-05 18:09:42','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1850,'AAALzn///54='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:07:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',1850,'AAALzn///68='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:35','Uploaded patch set 3.',1850,'AAALzn///6Y='),(1,'2010-11-12 20:05:30','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1851,'AAAL0H///0E='),(94,'2010-11-11 19:08:59','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1851,'AAAL0H///1k='),(1,'2010-11-11 18:57:44','Uploaded patch set 4.',1851,'AAAL0H///1w='),(1,'2010-11-12 22:05:25','Uploaded patch set 5.',1851,'AAAL0H///y4='),(94,'2010-11-12 22:26:07','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nNow I can rest at night.',1851,'AAAL0H///ys='),(1,'2010-11-12 22:05:52','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1851,'AAAL0H///yw='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:31:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1851,'AAAL0X////o='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:31:01','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1851,'AAAL0X////s='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:35','Uploaded patch set 3.',1851,'AAALzn///6c='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:07:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',1851,'AAALzn///7A='),(1,'2010-11-11 18:57:44','Uploaded patch set 4.',1852,'AAAL0H///18='),(94,'2010-11-12 22:29:31','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1852,'AAAL0H///yc='),(1,'2010-11-12 22:05:25','Uploaded patch set 5.',1852,'AAAL0H///zE='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:31:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1852,'AAAL0X////g='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:31:57','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1852,'AAAL0X////k='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:34','Uploaded patch set 3.',1852,'AAALzn///60='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:07:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',1852,'AAALzn///7I='),(1,'2010-11-11 18:57:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',1853,'AAAL0H///2A='),(94,'2010-11-12 22:31:21','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1853,'AAAL0H///yU='),(1,'2010-11-12 22:05:25','Uploaded patch set 4.',1853,'AAAL0H///zI='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:32:59','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1853,'AAAL0X////c='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:32:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1853,'AAAL0X////Y='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',1853,'AAALzn///64='),(1,'2010-11-11 18:57:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',1854,'AAAL0H///10='),(1,'2010-11-12 22:05:25','Uploaded patch set 4.',1854,'AAAL0H///y8='),(94,'2010-11-12 22:36:45','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1854,'AAAL0H///yQ='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:37:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1854,'AAAL0X////Q='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:37:30','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1854,'AAAL0X////U='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',1854,'AAALzn///6s='),(1,'2010-11-11 18:57:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',1855,'AAAL0H///14='),(94,'2010-11-12 22:39:01','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1855,'AAAL0H///yE='),(1,'2010-11-12 22:05:25','Uploaded patch set 4.',1855,'AAAL0H///zA='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:38:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1855,'AAAL0X////I='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:38:16','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1855,'AAAL0X////M='),(1,'2010-11-05 02:12:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',1855,'AAALzn///6w='),(2,'2010-11-10 22:34:04','Patch Set 2:\n\nOn a side note, we should probably document the various tracing options available in EGit on the EGit Contributor Guide wiki.',1856,'AAAL0H///44='),(2,'2010-11-10 22:33:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1856,'AAAL0H///48='),(2,'2010-11-10 22:33:34','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks.',1856,'AAAL0H///5A='),(4,'2010-11-10 22:20:41','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n- rebased onto current master\n- resolved conflicts',1856,'AAAL0H///5Q='),(4,'2010-11-10 22:19:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',1856,'AAAL0H///5U='),(2,'2010-11-10 17:15:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems sensible.',1856,'AAAL0H///6c='),(2,'2010-11-10 17:21:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nCan you rebase and fix the change Mathias?\n\nThanks!',1856,'AAAL0H///6U='),(NULL,'2010-11-10 17:15:23','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on commit 85c97c1da369032de2c01012a24c323b4328f9ff which has no change associated with it.\n* Depends on commit 508cf87c0daa84e3b6fe2c648651b457f0c6b575 which has no change associated with it.\n* Depends on commit b22f7c75199e1dde22a5539fdccb22967fb6fb91 which has no change associated with it.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1856,'AAAL0H///6Y='),(9,'2010-11-07 20:31:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',1857,'AAALzn///4c='),(9,'2010-11-07 20:20:00','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1857,'AAALzn///4k='),(2,'2010-11-07 21:05:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1857,'AAALzn///4Q='),(2,'2010-11-07 21:05:23','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1857,'AAALzn///4U='),(9,'2010-11-07 20:31:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1857,'AAALzn///4Y='),(1,'2010-11-05 21:19:33','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1857,'AAALzn///5k='),(9,'2010-11-05 15:12:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nThe org.eclipse.jgit.pgm/META-INF/services/org.eclipse.jgit.pgm.TextBuiltin\ncontains more changes than necessary. However, this is a consequence of sorting this file by the property key and the\nfact that the file wasn\'t completely sorted before this \nchange.',1857,'AAALzn///6E='),(1,'2010-11-05 21:00:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1858,'AAALzn///50='),(1,'2010-11-05 21:00:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1858,'AAALzn///5w='),(1,'2010-11-08 22:42:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1859,'AAALz3////4='),(1,'2010-11-08 22:42:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1859,'AAALz3////8='),(79,'2010-11-09 10:34:39','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWas fixed in 4d14897189d6edef5d6c838bb5a066ac49fc2e44, oh well.',1860,'AAAL0H////0='),(1,'2010-11-08 20:27:20','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1861,'AAALzn///3Y='),(4,'2010-11-07 20:22:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1861,'AAALzn///4g='),(2,'2010-11-07 21:07:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1861,'AAALzn///4I='),(2,'2010-11-07 21:07:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1861,'AAALzn///4M='),(2,'2010-11-07 21:09:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1862,'AAALzn///4A='),(2,'2010-11-07 21:08:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems a bit silly but looks good :)',1862,'AAALzn///4E='),(1,'2010-11-08 21:57:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1863,'AAALzn///14='),(1,'2010-11-08 21:57:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(Rebased onto current master.)',1863,'AAALzn///18='),(1,'2010-11-08 21:56:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',1863,'AAALzn///2A='),(NULL,'2010-11-08 21:52:22','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.',1863,'AAALzn///2E='),(1,'2010-11-08 21:52:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1863,'AAALzn///2I='),(46,'2010-11-09 17:16:28','Patch Set 2: (10 inline comments)\n\n',1864,'AAAL0H////A='),(46,'2010-11-09 17:15:57','Uploaded patch set 3.',1864,'AAAL0H////E='),(46,'2010-11-09 17:17:23','Patch Set 3:\n\nUsing the interactive rebase file format instead of the rebase-apply format.',1864,'AAAL0H///+8='),(46,'2010-11-12 08:15:30','Patch Set 7:\n\nRebased to required DirCacheCheckout fix.',1864,'AAAL0H///1Q='),(46,'2010-11-12 08:14:42','Uploaded patch set 7.',1864,'AAAL0H///1U='),(46,'2010-11-11 14:42:26','Patch Set 6:\n\nUse operation instead of abort/skip/continue flags for controlling the flow.\n\nAdd support for cancellation via the\nprogress monitor.\n\nImplement abort logic (not working with the current DirCacheCheckout; Christian Halstrick is working on this one).',1864,'AAAL0H///3g='),(46,'2010-11-11 14:38:45','Uploaded patch set 6.',1864,'AAAL0H///3o='),(46,'2010-11-11 08:07:36','Patch Set 5:\n\nImproved test to also cover the popStep() functionality.',1864,'AAAL0H///4I='),(46,'2010-11-11 08:06:43','Uploaded patch set 5.',1864,'AAAL0H///4M='),(46,'2010-11-10 13:57:36','Patch Set 3: (14 inline comments)\n\n',1864,'AAAL0H///7g='),(46,'2010-11-10 13:56:30','Uploaded patch set 4.',1864,'AAAL0H///7k='),(1,'2010-11-10 02:18:13','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(14 inline comments)\n\nI\'m glad we moved to the rebase interactive format, its a better starting point.  More comments inline.',1864,'AAAL0H///8w='),(46,'2010-11-22 15:30:03','Patch Set 9:\n\nFixed the tirvial parts for Christians comments, rebased to current master and externalized the remaining Strings.',1864,'AAAL0n///80='),(46,'2010-11-22 15:29:01','Uploaded patch set 9.',1864,'AAAL0n///84='),(5,'2010-11-22 15:04:06','Patch Set 8: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(9 inline comments)\n\n',1864,'AAAL0n///88='),(2,'2010-11-22 15:59:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1864,'AAAL0n///8c='),(2,'2010-11-22 15:59:55','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is good enough to be merged in now.\n\nLook forward to when --continue will be implemented :)',1864,'AAAL0n///8g='),(2,'2010-11-22 15:58:59','Uploaded patch set 10.',1864,'AAAL0n///8k='),(2,'2010-11-22 15:50:38','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks good.',1864,'AAAL0n///8o='),(46,'2010-11-15 07:54:03','Patch Set 8:\n\nRebased to current master and adjusted to the new DirCacheCheckout constructor without HEAD id.',1864,'AAAL0X///+E='),(46,'2010-11-15 07:53:09','Uploaded patch set 8.',1864,'AAAL0X///+I='),(1,'2010-11-08 23:22:57','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(10 inline comments)\n\n',1864,'AAALz3///+8='),(46,'2010-11-08 16:35:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',1864,'AAALzn///3s='),(2,'2010-11-08 12:50:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1865,'AAALzn///34='),(2,'2010-11-08 12:50:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1865,'AAALzn///38='),(4,'2010-11-09 23:20:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1866,'AAAL0H///+M='),(4,'2010-11-09 23:20:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1866,'AAAL0H///+Q='),(1,'2010-11-08 23:32:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1867,'AAALz3///+g='),(1,'2010-11-08 23:32:44','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1867,'AAALz3///+k='),(1,'2010-11-08 23:32:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',1867,'AAALz3///+o='),(1,'2010-11-08 23:28:32','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI\'ll cherry-pick and fix the one issue with DirCacheEditor not being used.',1867,'AAALz3///+s='),(44,'2010-11-08 16:30:07','Patch Set 1:\n\nPrerequisite for EGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1868',1867,'AAALzn///3w='),(4,'2010-11-10 21:37:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',1868,'AAAL0H///50='),(4,'2010-11-10 21:39:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1868,'AAAL0H///5s='),(4,'2010-11-10 21:39:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1868,'AAAL0H///5w='),(44,'2010-11-08 16:29:13','Patch Set 1:\n\nDepends on JGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1867',1868,'AAALzn///30='),(46,'2010-11-09 17:24:00','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nOk, CTRL-Z then...',1869,'AAAL0H///+4='),(1,'2010-11-08 21:51:25','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1869,'AAALzn///2M='),(4,'2010-11-09 23:18:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1870,'AAAL0H///+U='),(4,'2010-11-09 23:18:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1870,'AAAL0H///+Y='),(46,'2010-11-09 10:18:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1871,'AAAL0H////4='),(46,'2010-11-09 10:18:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Jens.',1871,'AAAL0H////8='),(46,'2010-11-09 17:45:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nCool. UI Tests are green.',1872,'AAAL0H///+0='),(5,'2010-11-09 22:11:08','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nlooks good to me. One minor comment.',1872,'AAAL0H///+s='),(5,'2010-11-10 15:48:11','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1872,'AAAL0H///68='),(2,'2010-11-10 16:17:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1872,'AAAL0H///6o='),(2,'2010-11-10 16:17:04','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nThis is fine.\n\nAs a future enhancement, can we move the deleteFile() logic to a utility method? I\'m sure we have this code somewhere else EGit and JGit (I know the tests for sure).',1872,'AAAL0H///6s='),(44,'2010-11-10 09:15:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',1872,'AAAL0H///8c='),(2,'2010-11-10 16:20:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1873,'AAAL0H///6g='),(2,'2010-11-10 16:20:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1873,'AAAL0H///6k='),(5,'2010-11-09 22:49:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1874,'AAAL0H///+c='),(5,'2010-11-09 22:49:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1874,'AAAL0H///+g='),(1,'2010-11-09 23:58:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1875,'AAAL0H///9s='),(1,'2010-11-09 23:58:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1875,'AAAL0H///9w='),(2,'2010-11-10 16:06:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1876,'AAAL0H///60='),(2,'2010-11-10 16:06:17','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1876,'AAAL0H///64='),(6,'2010-11-10 08:43:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',1876,'AAAL0H///8g='),(6,'2010-11-10 08:38:26','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThe change breaks the HttpClientTests. I will push a new version.',1876,'AAAL0H///8k='),(1,'2010-11-12 16:29:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1877,'AAAL0H///00='),(1,'2010-11-12 16:29:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nOK, thanks Christian.',1877,'AAAL0H///04='),(5,'2010-11-11 21:41:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\nThe dependent change 1888 fixes additional stuff and finally brings a tests. This testcase proofs that we need this fix. Without Lluis fix that testcase will fail. Shawn, are you convinced? (I know it would be more convenient to have a seperate test for just this fix - but that would be to much work for no good reason since I touch again the lines added here and test the whole thing in 1888)',1877,'AAAL0H///1g='),(5,'2010-11-10 21:54:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1877,'AAAL0H///5k='),(1,'2010-11-10 18:15:07','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1877,'AAAL0H///6M='),(2,'2010-11-11 15:30:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1878,'AAAL0H///3E='),(2,'2010-11-11 15:30:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1878,'AAAL0H///3I='),(6,'2010-11-11 14:36:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1879,'AAAL0H///3s='),(6,'2010-11-11 14:36:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1879,'AAAL0H///3w='),(4,'2010-11-10 23:26:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1879,'AAAL0H///4c='),(6,'2010-11-11 14:41:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1880,'AAAL0H///3k='),(2,'2010-11-11 15:27:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1880,'AAAL0H///3U='),(2,'2010-11-11 15:27:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1880,'AAAL0H///3Y='),(6,'2010-11-11 14:42:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1881,'AAAL0H///3c='),(2,'2010-11-11 15:28:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1881,'AAAL0H///3M='),(2,'2010-11-11 15:28:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1881,'AAAL0H///3Q='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1882,'AAAL0H///xA='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1882,'AAAL0H///xE='),(94,'2010-11-12 20:12:24','Patch Set 2:\n\nhttp://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/nio/channels/Channels.html#newOutputStream(java.nio.channels.WritableByteChannel)',1883,'AAAL0H///0A='),(1,'2010-11-11 01:12:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nPatch set 2 fixes the unit tests.',1883,'AAAL0H///4Q='),(1,'2010-11-11 01:11:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1883,'AAAL0H///4U='),(1,'2010-11-11 00:54:38','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\nFails unit tests.  :-(',1883,'AAAL0H///4Y='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:46','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1883,'AAAL0H///w0='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1883,'AAAL0H///ww='),(94,'2010-11-12 22:42:10','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1883,'AAAL0H///yA='),(1,'2010-11-12 21:38:41','Uploaded patch set 3.',1883,'AAAL0H///zY='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1884,'AAAL0H///wo='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1884,'AAAL0H///ws='),(94,'2010-11-12 22:45:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1884,'AAAL0H///x4='),(1,'2010-11-12 21:38:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',1884,'AAAL0H///zM='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1885,'AAAL0H///wc='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1885,'AAAL0H///wk='),(94,'2010-11-12 22:49:19','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1885,'AAAL0H///x0='),(1,'2010-11-12 21:38:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',1885,'AAAL0H///zQ='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1886,'AAAL0H///w4='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1886,'AAAL0H///wg='),(94,'2010-11-12 22:49:44','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1886,'AAAL0H///xw='),(1,'2010-11-12 21:38:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',1886,'AAAL0H///zU='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:59:43','Patch Set 1:\n\nhttps://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=330021',1887,'AAAL0H///2E='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:58:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1887,'AAAL0H///2I='),(2,'2010-11-11 16:58:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1887,'AAAL0H///2M='),(1,'2010-11-12 16:50:03','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1888,'AAAL0H///0g='),(46,'2010-11-12 08:05:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nWorks fine with the RebaseCommand.',1888,'AAAL0H///1Y='),(NULL,'2010-11-13 00:10:06','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.',1888,'AAAL0H///xI='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:10:06','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1888,'AAAL0H///xM='),(5,'2010-11-12 22:37:26','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1888,'AAAL0H///yI='),(5,'2010-11-12 22:36:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',1888,'AAAL0H///yM='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:42:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1888,'AAAL0X///+k='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:42:38','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',1888,'AAAL0X///+o='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:42:23','Uploaded patch set 3.',1888,'AAAL0X///+s='),(1,'2010-11-12 20:01:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',1889,'AAAL0H///0c='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1889,'AAAL0H///v0='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1889,'AAAL0H///w8='),(1,'2010-11-12 20:01:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1890,'AAAL0H///0Y='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1890,'AAAL0H///vs='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1890,'AAAL0H///wU='),(1,'2010-11-12 20:01:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1891,'AAAL0H///0U='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1891,'AAAL0H///vw='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1891,'AAAL0H///wY='),(1,'2010-11-12 20:01:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1892,'AAAL0H///0Q='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1892,'AAAL0H///vo='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1892,'AAAL0H///wM='),(1,'2010-11-12 20:01:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',1893,'AAAL0H///0M='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1893,'AAAL0H///vk='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1893,'AAAL0H///wQ='),(8,'2010-11-12 09:27:18','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1894,'AAAL0H///1M='),(4,'2010-11-12 11:42:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1895,'AAAL0H///1E='),(4,'2010-11-12 11:42:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1895,'AAAL0H///1I='),(2,'2010-11-12 20:34:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1896,'AAAL0H///z0='),(NULL,'2010-11-12 20:32:19','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.',1896,'AAAL0H///z4='),(2,'2010-11-12 20:32:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1896,'AAAL0H///z8='),(2,'2010-11-12 21:27:29','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1896,'AAAL0H///zc='),(1,'2010-11-12 21:22:25','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1896,'AAAL0H///zk='),(2,'2010-11-12 20:35:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1896,'AAAL0H///zs='),(2,'2010-11-12 20:35:06','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1896,'AAAL0H///zw='),(8,'2010-11-13 11:32:03','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1896,'AAAL0X////4='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1897,'AAAL0H///v4='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1897,'AAAL0H///vg='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1898,'AAAL0H///v8='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1898,'AAAL0H///vc='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:09:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1899,'AAAL0H///xQ='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:09:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1899,'AAAL0H///xU='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:39:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1900,'AAAL0X////A='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:39:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems reasonable.\n\nYet another base64 class... there\'s probably 20 copies in the Eclipse SDK... sigh...',1900,'AAAL0X////E='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:40:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1901,'AAAL0X///+4='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:40:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1901,'AAAL0X///+8='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:40:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1902,'AAAL0X///+0='),(2,'2010-11-13 17:40:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1902,'AAAL0X///+w='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:19:09','Change has been successfully pushed.',1903,'AAAL0H///vU='),(NULL,'2010-11-13 00:17:50','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1903,'AAAL0H///wA='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1903,'AAAL0H///wE='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:19:09','Change has been successfully pushed.',1904,'AAAL0H///vY='),(1,'2010-11-13 00:17:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1904,'AAAL0H///wI='),(8,'2010-11-16 22:59:41','Patch Set 1:\n\nSee \"[jgit-dev] Avoiding stat calls (again)\" on the mailing list on what to fix first. Of course I won\'t notice a stat less when every file is being read....',1905,'AAAL0n///+s='),(8,'2010-11-14 23:49:26','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\nThis is based on an idea I presented on the mailing list. HOWEVER, I see no noticeable difference when attempting a commit in Eclipse, i.e. the part from selecting Commit in the Team menu, until the Commit dialog appears. \n\nDoes anyone else notice an improvement? Even on the linux kernel with over 2000 files I saw no certain improvement. If there is an improvement it likely less than 10%, which is less than I expected.',1905,'AAAL0X///+c='),(1,'2010-11-15 18:31:22','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nHave you tried to strace the JVM and see if your change actually reduced the number of stat calls?\n\nOn Win32 this should be giving us a nice improvement, but on Linux the VFS is so blazingly fast that we probably can\'t measure the difference for a local POSIX filesystem like ext2/3/4, XFS, JFS.  Over NFS however this may be a huge difference.\n\nI agree with the logic, and what you are trying to do here.  I\'m somewhat surprised this isn\'t a measurable improvement.  But if the before and after straces show a reduced number of stat(2) syscalls, we should make the change anyway.  Reducing syscalls even if we aren\'t getting an improvement for the Linux kernel will still help with the really sick cases of 100k+ files in a repository\'s working directory.',1905,'AAAL0X///9c='),(1,'2010-11-15 18:21:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1906,'AAAL0X///9s='),(1,'2010-11-15 18:21:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1906,'AAAL0X///9w='),(2,'2010-11-22 17:50:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1907,'AAAL0n///7c='),(2,'2010-11-22 17:50:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\nLooks fine.',1907,'AAAL0n///7g='),(2,'2010-11-15 01:00:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nThis is dependent on JGit change:\n\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1906',1907,'AAAL0X///+U='),(2,'2010-11-23 19:08:50','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nUploaded a new change',1908,'AAAL0n///54='),(NULL,'2010-11-23 18:39:00','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 3 of Ie06b9e79, however the current patch set is 5.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1908,'AAAL0n///58='),(2,'2010-11-23 18:39:00','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1908,'AAAL0n///6A='),(2,'2010-11-22 17:04:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1909,'AAAL0n///8A='),(2,'2010-11-22 17:04:29','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple enough change. Looks good.',1909,'AAAL0n///8E='),(2,'2010-11-22 17:03:17','Uploaded patch set 3.',1909,'AAAL0n///8I='),(NULL,'2010-11-22 16:54:11','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.',1909,'AAAL0n///8M='),(NULL,'2010-11-22 16:54:05','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.',1909,'AAAL0n///8Q='),(2,'2010-11-22 16:54:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI\'m happy with the state of this.',1909,'AAAL0n///8U='),(2,'2010-11-22 16:51:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',1909,'AAAL0n///8Y='),(NULL,'2010-11-22 17:04:59','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I0b74bb92, however the current patch set is 3.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1910,'AAAL0n///70='),(NULL,'2010-11-22 17:04:50','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I0b74bb92, however the current patch set is 3.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1910,'AAAL0n///74='),(2,'2010-11-22 17:04:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood to go.',1910,'AAAL0n///78='),(2,'2010-11-22 17:22:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1910,'AAAL0n///7k='),(2,'2010-11-22 17:22:38','Patch Set 2:\n\nGood enough to merge.',1910,'AAAL0n///7o='),(2,'2010-11-22 17:22:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood enough to merge.',1910,'AAAL0n///7s='),(2,'2010-11-22 17:22:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',1910,'AAAL0n///7w='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:56:12','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1911,'AAAL0n////4='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:56:45','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1912,'AAAL0n////0='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:56:52','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1913,'AAAL0n////w='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:57:02','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1914,'AAAL0n////s='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:57:12','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1915,'AAAL0n////o='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:57:23','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1916,'AAAL0n////k='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:57:31','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1917,'AAAL0n////g='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:57:36','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1918,'AAAL0n////c='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:57:48','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1919,'AAAL0n////Y='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:57:52','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1920,'AAAL0n////U='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:58:01','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1921,'AAAL0n////Q='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:58:11','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1922,'AAAL0n////M='),(49,'2010-11-16 19:58:20','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',1923,'AAAL0n////I='),(49,'2010-11-16 20:08:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',1924,'AAAL0n////E='),(49,'2010-11-16 22:14:43','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1924,'AAAL0n///+0='),(15,'2010-11-16 21:45:29','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1924,'AAAL0n///+8='),(49,'2010-11-16 22:14:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',1924,'AAAL0n///+w='),(6,'2010-11-29 14:44:28','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1924,'AAAL0n///q0='),(6,'2010-11-29 14:44:03','Uploaded patch set 5.',1924,'AAAL0n///q4='),(NULL,'2010-11-29 14:38:27','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.',1924,'AAAL0n///q8='),(6,'2010-11-29 14:44:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1924,'AAAL0n///qw='),(6,'2010-11-29 14:38:26','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks, Dariusz!',1924,'AAAL0n///rA='),(49,'2010-11-27 00:35:26','Uploaded patch set 4.',1924,'AAAL0n///t0='),(49,'2010-11-27 00:36:08','Patch Set 4:\n\nThis change set includes also changes for tests',1924,'AAAL0n///tw='),(6,'2010-11-26 10:28:22','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nGood change.\n\nBut the UI tests using the tag dialog do not work anymore on my machine.\n\nThe reason is that the OK-button of the create tag dialog never is enabled.\n\nFor example, in GitRepositoriesViewTagHandlingTest.testCreateTags the mthod createTag terminates with a TimeoutException\n\nThe reason is that createDialog.bot().textWithLabel(UIText.CreateTagDialog_tagMessage).setText(message) does not do anything.',1924,'AAAL0n///v8='),(1,'2010-11-19 00:55:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1925,'AAAL0n///+g='),(1,'2010-11-19 00:55:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is a trivial refactoring to support debugging.',1925,'AAAL0n///+k='),(5,'2010-11-19 08:24:10','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\napart from one open question this looks ok.',1926,'AAAL0n///+Q='),(1,'2010-11-19 23:54:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1926,'AAAL0n///9k='),(1,'2010-11-19 23:54:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1926,'AAAL0n///9o='),(1,'2010-12-07 22:19:37','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nThis isn\'t the solution to the ANY_DIFF problem.',1927,'AAAL03///+A='),(1,'2010-12-08 22:18:48','Uploaded patch set 3.',1927,'AAAL03///v8='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:22:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',1927,'AAAL03///xI='),(1,'2010-12-08 17:49:21','Patch Set 1: No score\n\n',1927,'AAAL03///zE='),(1,'2010-12-08 17:49:00','Patch Set 1: Restored\n\nChristian expressed interest in this change, so I\'m recovering it.',1927,'AAAL03///zI='),(1,'2010-11-19 01:54:19','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis patch is totally untested, but I think it does what I was proposing on the mailing list... have the WorkingTreeIterator use data from the DirCacheIterator, so that TreeFilter.ANY_DIFF can compare with idEqual() and not trigger a scan of the contents.',1927,'AAAL0n///+c='),(1,'2010-11-19 06:17:26','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\nAside from my less-than-usual descriptive commit message (sorry, baby started crying and I had to attend to that... I only found 15 minutes today for coding and this was it)... I\'ve realized this probably isn\'t going to be a complete solution to Robin\'s commit performance problem.  So I\'m yet not convinced we should commit this.  See the mailing list thread \"Avoiding stat calls (again)\" for more discussion.',1927,'AAAL0n///+Y='),(8,'2010-12-20 00:00:12','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nAmazing performance boost in the Commit Dialog and does not seem to break anything. dtrace on Mac looks good too.',1927,'AAAL13///3s='),(1,'2010-12-20 16:34:56','Patch Set 3: Do not submit\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nRegarding Philipp\'s question about ANY_DIFF filter... its too difficult within ANY_DIFF filter to find which tree of the N trees is the WorkingTreeIterator and which is the DirCacheIterator... and if they are even related.  They might not be.  Its a valid use case for TreeWalk to compare two working directories to each other by just adding two WorkingTreeIterators to the same TreeWalk.  An application might give us 4 iterators (2 WorkingTreeIterators, 2 DirCacheIterators) and expect us to find the differences, even if they aren\'t related to each other in any way.\n\nThe only sane solution is to have the application configure things for us when they use TreeWalk.  Either by using IndexDiffFilter, and/or by using this new setDirCacheIterator API to let us know which other iterator of the same TreeWalk is associated with the FileTreeIterator.',1927,'AAAL13///zU='),(100,'2010-12-15 11:36:31','Patch Set 3: (2 inline comments)\n\nWould it make sense to invoke setDirCacheIterator() from within TreeFilter.ANY_DIFF in case it detects that both WorkingTreeIterator and DirCacheIterator are used?',1927,'AAAL1n///7E='),(8,'2011-01-15 20:28:48','Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1927,'AAAL2n///3g='),(8,'2011-01-14 17:14:03','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1927,'AAAL2n///5A='),(5,'2011-01-14 16:21:54','Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1927,'AAAL2n///5c='),(5,'2011-01-14 16:48:53','Uploaded patch set 6.',1927,'AAAL2n///5Y='),(8,'2011-01-14 15:24:32','Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1927,'AAAL2n///6E='),(5,'2011-01-28 11:57:16','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nthis fix still looks ok for me now. Is there anybody voting still against it? Shawn, there is still a -2 from you. Something I could do to convince you?',1927,'AAAL2n///C8='),(8,'2011-01-27 07:25:02','Patch Set 6:\n\nping?',1927,'AAAL2n///IM='),(2,'2011-02-03 23:06:40','Uploaded patch set 7.',1927,'AAAL2n//+qc='),(NULL,'2011-02-03 23:05:31','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 2 of I4de7501d, however the current patch set is 4.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1927,'AAAL2n//+qg='),(2,'2011-02-03 23:05:30','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nDone then.',1927,'AAAL2n//+qk='),(1,'2011-02-03 22:55:49','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nI\'m OK with this version, thanks guys.',1927,'AAAL2n//+qo='),(2,'2011-02-03 23:06:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1927,'AAAL2n//+qU='),(2,'2011-02-03 23:06:51','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nDone.',1927,'AAAL2n//+qY='),(8,'2010-12-26 15:58:20','Patch Set 3:\n\nThis relates to https://bugs.eclipse.org/331273',1927,'AAAL2X////o='),(5,'2011-01-12 09:32:02','Patch Set 5:\n\nCheck if this change also fixes bug 325393',1927,'AAAL2X///e0='),(5,'2011-01-10 15:59:38','Uploaded patch set 5.',1927,'AAAL2X///gc='),(5,'2011-01-10 16:00:16','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\njust rebased',1927,'AAAL2X///gY='),(5,'2010-12-31 15:36:31','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1927,'AAAL2X///yc='),(5,'2010-12-31 15:34:33','Uploaded patch set 4.',1927,'AAAL2X///yk='),(46,'2010-11-19 16:08:54','Patch Set 1:\n\nJust for clarification: I think the toggle action would still be great to have, but it should work on the team preference.',1928,'AAAL0n///+I='),(46,'2010-11-19 16:06:09','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nHi Ruth,\nfirst of all, thanks for your contribution. However, I\'m afraid that this is a duplicative effort. The CompareUtils class already checks the preferences found on the Team preference page (Menu path Windows->Preferences->Team, Checkbox \"Reuse open compare editors when opening comparisons\"), and I don\'t think we should have our own Preference here.',1928,'AAAL0n///+M='),(46,'2010-11-24 12:29:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1928,'AAAL0n///30='),(46,'2010-11-24 12:29:40','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased to current master.',1928,'AAAL0n///34='),(46,'2010-11-24 12:28:21','Uploaded patch set 4.',1928,'AAAL0n///38='),(NULL,'2010-11-24 12:23:22','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.',1928,'AAAL0n///4A='),(46,'2010-11-24 12:23:21','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Ruth, nice contribution.',1928,'AAAL0n///4E='),(45,'2010-11-24 09:18:48','Uploaded patch set 3.',1928,'AAAL0n///4I='),(46,'2010-11-24 08:22:20','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(7 inline comments)\n\nAlmost perfect. Just a few style-nits and formatting issues. Please also check the commit message.',1928,'AAAL0n///4M='),(45,'2010-11-24 07:55:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',1928,'AAAL0n///4s='),(4,'2010-11-22 21:43:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1929,'AAAL0n///7Q='),(4,'2010-11-22 21:43:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- fixed typo in method name\n- improved commit message\n- verified\n\nthanks for the fast fix :-)',1929,'AAAL0n///7U='),(4,'2010-11-22 21:42:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',1929,'AAAL0n///7Y='),(6,'2010-11-25 08:24:30','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nBetter, but not yet ok ;-)\n\nWhen a file is changed both in the workspace and in the index, the compare editor for the workspace version compares the workspace version with the index version. However, the label of the index version on the right hand side contains the commit id instead of \"cached version\".',1930,'AAAL0n///0g='),(49,'2010-11-24 20:36:32','Patch Set 2:\n\nNow headers should be OK ;)',1930,'AAAL0n///18='),(49,'2010-11-24 20:35:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',1930,'AAAL0n///2A='),(6,'2010-11-24 17:22:25','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis change fixes the problem with the wrong content. But it does not fix the wrong headers in the compare editor. There I still see the commit ids of HEAD on the left and of its first parent on the right.',1930,'AAAL0n///2Y='),(49,'2010-12-02 19:20:48','Uploaded patch set 5.',1930,'AAAL0n///e0='),(49,'2010-12-02 19:38:50','Patch Set 6:\n\n> * The comparison of the staged changes is not with HEAD but with the parent of HEAD (see inline comment in GitCacheCompareInput)\n\nDone.\n\n> * The compare editor for a file with both index and working dir changes shows conflicts in red\n\nDone.\n\n * When a file is deleted I see the file with a normal decorator; the right hand side of the compare editor is just empty. I can see nowhere that the file is deleted.\n\nI would prefer to have a separate patch for this since this issue appears also in commit nodes.',1930,'AAAL0n///es='),(49,'2010-12-02 19:35:24','Uploaded patch set 6.',1930,'AAAL0n///ew='),(6,'2010-12-02 09:59:56','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI still find problems:\n- The comparison of the staged changes is not with HEAD but with the parent of HEAD (see inline comment in GitCacheCompareInput)\n- The compare editor for a file with both index and working dir changes shows conflicts in red\n- When a file is deleted I see the file with a normal decorator; the right hand side of the compare editor is just empty. I can see nowhere that the file is deleted.',1930,'AAAL0n///gw='),(49,'2010-12-01 22:16:11','Uploaded patch set 4.',1930,'AAAL0n///ig='),(49,'2010-11-29 22:42:07','Patch Set 3: (4 inline comments)\n\n',1930,'AAAL0n///pI='),(6,'2010-11-29 14:27:08','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nPlease see my inline comments.',1930,'AAAL0n///rE='),(49,'2010-12-06 20:46:39','Uploaded patch set 8.',1930,'AAAL0n///Sk='),(49,'2010-11-26 23:56:26','Uploaded patch set 3.',1930,'AAAL0n///t4='),(49,'2010-12-06 12:04:03','Patch Set 7:\n\nThe previous patch version was working for me. I\'ve compare it with my local version and there was no changes.\n\nThis is a rebased version of previous patch, Stefan please check it.',1930,'AAAL0n///Tc='),(49,'2010-12-06 12:02:49','Uploaded patch set 7.',1930,'AAAL0n///Tg='),(6,'2010-12-06 11:39:08','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n> > * The compare editor for a file with both index and working dir changes shows conflicts in red\n\n> Done.\n\nI still have this issue. I also could not see a corresponding change in the last patch set. Maybe you forgot to commit that?',1930,'AAAL0n///To='),(6,'2010-12-06 12:32:04','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nHi Dariusz,\n\nI still have the issue.\n\nI uploaded both my test repository and a screen shot of what I see to the bug. You can do the following to reproduce:\n\n- unzip the repo and import the project\n- On the project, synchronize HEAD with local changes and HEAD\n- In the synchronize view, double click on Calc4.java, both on the node below <working tree> and below <staged changes>\n\nIn both case I see the whole content marked as conflicting.\n\nStefan',1930,'AAAL0n///TY='),(49,'2010-12-13 20:02:16','Patch Set 8:\n\nThis change does not contains fix for bug 326674 only for bug 326674. The 326674 is \"should\" be fixed by change Ifcc040fd15f35',1930,'AAAL1n////g='),(6,'2010-12-13 19:57:57','Patch Set 8: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI do not see a difference between patch set 7 and 8. I still have the issue with the conflict-style compare editor.\n\nIf you do not find the reason we could submit this but track the issue in bug 326674.',1930,'AAAL1n////k='),(49,'2010-12-13 20:15:05','Patch Set 9:\n\nrebased',1930,'AAAL1n////Q='),(49,'2010-12-13 20:14:37','Uploaded patch set 9.',1930,'AAAL1n////U='),(2,'2010-12-13 22:05:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1930,'AAAL1n///+k='),(2,'2010-12-13 22:05:28','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1930,'AAAL1n///+o='),(6,'2010-11-26 09:59:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1931,'AAAL0n///wM='),(6,'2010-11-26 09:59:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1931,'AAAL0n///wQ='),(2,'2010-11-23 14:46:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine... we can potentially use another color via SytledString if we wanted too...',1932,'AAAL0n///60='),(2,'2010-11-23 14:46:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1932,'AAAL0n///6w='),(2,'2010-11-23 15:12:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1933,'AAAL0n///6o='),(2,'2010-11-23 15:12:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',1933,'AAAL0n///6s='),(2,'2010-11-23 16:58:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1934,'AAAL0n///6U='),(2,'2010-11-23 16:58:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1934,'AAAL0n///6Y='),(2,'2010-11-23 16:53:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1935,'AAAL0n///6c='),(2,'2010-11-23 16:53:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.\n\nWe may want to clean this up more in the future but for now it\'s better than it was before.',1935,'AAAL0n///6g='),(44,'2010-11-23 16:52:09','Patch Set 1:\n\nCan be tested by e.g. trying to push to jgit origin. This results in error message:\n\nTransport error occured during push operation: http://egit.eclipse.org/jgit.git: not authorized',1935,'AAAL0n///6k='),(2,'2010-11-23 16:58:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1936,'AAAL0n///6M='),(2,'2010-11-23 16:58:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWeird, looks fine.',1936,'AAAL0n///6Q='),(2,'2010-11-23 19:09:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good now.',1937,'AAAL0n///50='),(2,'2010-11-23 19:09:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1937,'AAAL0n///5w='),(5,'2010-11-24 15:08:11','Patch Set 2:\n\nonly rebased',1938,'AAAL0n///3c='),(5,'2010-11-24 15:07:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',1938,'AAAL0n///3g='),(2,'2010-11-24 14:36:20','Patch Set 1:\n\nCan you rebase and upload again?\n\nAlso, it\'s not always necessary to externalize exceptions. In Eclipse, this isn\'t always done but it\'s up to you :)',1938,'AAAL0n///3k='),(NULL,'2010-11-24 14:35:21','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.',1938,'AAAL0n///3o='),(2,'2010-11-24 14:35:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1938,'AAAL0n///3s='),(5,'2010-11-24 15:08:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1938,'AAAL0n///3U='),(46,'2010-11-24 14:24:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nSuccessfully retested on my machine.',1938,'AAAL0n///3w='),(5,'2010-11-24 15:08:57','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1938,'AAAL0n///3Y='),(4,'2010-11-24 15:35:52','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n- verified\n- looks good except minor style nit',1939,'AAAL0n///3M='),(4,'2010-12-03 00:08:30','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1939,'AAAL0n///dc='),(2,'2010-12-03 01:19:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1939,'AAAL0n///dU='),(2,'2010-12-03 01:19:04','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1939,'AAAL0n///dY='),(5,'2010-12-02 12:18:14','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1939,'AAAL0n///gQ='),(5,'2010-12-02 12:17:28','Uploaded patch set 3.',1939,'AAAL0n///gU='),(1,'2010-11-27 01:51:52','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1939,'AAAL0n///tI='),(5,'2010-11-25 22:44:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',1939,'AAAL0n///xo='),(5,'2010-11-25 22:43:37','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1939,'AAAL0n///xs='),(1,'2010-11-25 18:05:07','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1939,'AAAL0n///yY='),(1,'2010-11-27 01:39:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1940,'AAAL0n///tk='),(1,'2010-11-27 01:39:43','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',1940,'AAAL0n///to='),(46,'2010-11-26 11:27:28','Patch Set 4:\n\nRebased to current master. Testing is difficult as this is for interoperability with the command line. However, I think we will have to look into the interoperatbility issue in the next sprint anyway, and perhaps we\'ll come up with something there.',1940,'AAAL0n///u4='),(46,'2010-11-26 11:25:09','Uploaded patch set 4.',1940,'AAAL0n///u8='),(4,'2010-11-26 16:40:34','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1940,'AAAL0n///uY='),(NULL,'2010-11-26 11:11:19','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 1 of Ia4a272d2, however the current patch set is 2.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',1940,'AAAL0n///vA='),(2,'2010-11-26 11:11:19','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nWe should test for this also.',1940,'AAAL0n///vE='),(46,'2010-11-26 07:31:41','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1940,'AAAL0n///wg='),(46,'2010-11-26 07:31:03','Uploaded patch set 3.',1940,'AAAL0n///wo='),(1,'2010-11-25 18:07:08','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1940,'AAAL0n///yQ='),(46,'2010-11-25 12:41:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',1940,'AAAL0n///zw='),(46,'2010-11-24 18:59:05','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWhile the command framework is much more modern, I have some concerns here: the contributions can not be configured by the end user and are always visible. I\'m not sure if we can just grab the real estate for the toolbar needed to add five buttons (and how many more would we have in the future)? Looking at CVS, they have only one single button configurable for the toolbar, even though their menu has 13 entries.\nSo I guess we should go back to actions sets.\nI played around a bit but wasn\'t able yet to get the enablement running, so we need to think about this again.\nBesides, I found some other issues: Commit and Fetch From are both enabled in the menu and all buttons in the toolbar are enabled if nothing is selected (e.g. after initial start of the workbench). When selecting a Git-controlled project, the enablement in the menu goes on for all items. When closing the project explorer, only Commit and Fetch From are active, both in the menu and in the toolbar...',1941,'AAAL0n///2E='),(4,'2010-11-29 16:37:01','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nUsed the approach in http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1955 instead. As long as the Team API uses actions there is no real benefit in using the command framework here.',1941,'AAAL0n///qY='),(4,'2010-11-25 15:27:05','Patch Set 2:\n\nI believe this now works properly on Mac OSX. Use the actionset to enable the git toolbar and menu.',1941,'AAAL0n///zg='),(4,'2010-11-25 15:25:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',1941,'AAAL0n///zk='),(4,'2010-11-25 00:15:12','Patch Set 1:\n\nCreated bug 331078 for a failing rebase which aborts due to conflicts with this EGit implementation but succeeds with native git.',1942,'AAAL0n///0k='),(4,'2010-11-24 23:41:10','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(7 inline comments)\n\n',1942,'AAAL0n///0o='),(49,'2010-11-24 21:57:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nYeah, finally we support rebase in EGit! I\'ve played a little bit with this change and it works well. I didn\'t found any bugs.',1942,'AAAL0n///1c='),(46,'2010-11-25 09:20:55','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nDuplicate Change-Id.',1942,'AAAL0n///z4='),(46,'2010-11-25 09:20:40','Patch Set 1: (7 inline comments)\n\nNeed to abandon this due to duplicate Change-Id.',1942,'AAAL0n///z8='),(46,'2010-11-25 09:19:27','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nDuplicate Change-Id.',1943,'AAAL0n///0A='),(46,'2010-11-24 16:24:13','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nShould be one change only.',1944,'AAAL0n///2g='),(46,'2010-11-24 16:23:52','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nShould be one change only',1945,'AAAL0n///2k='),(6,'2010-11-24 17:27:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1946,'AAAL0n///2Q='),(6,'2010-11-24 17:27:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1946,'AAAL0n///2U='),(46,'2010-11-24 16:29:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',1947,'AAAL0n///2c='),(2,'2010-11-24 18:35:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1947,'AAAL0n///2I='),(2,'2010-11-24 18:35:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks',1947,'AAAL0n///2M='),(1,'2010-11-29 22:59:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1948,'AAAL0n///pA='),(1,'2010-11-29 22:59:14','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1948,'AAAL0n///pE='),(51,'2010-11-29 16:17:28','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1948,'AAAL0n///qg='),(51,'2010-11-29 16:16:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',1948,'AAAL0n///qk='),(1,'2010-11-27 01:48:30','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',1948,'AAAL0n///tU='),(51,'2010-11-26 10:11:48','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1948,'AAAL0n///wA='),(51,'2010-11-26 10:09:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',1948,'AAAL0n///wI='),(1,'2010-11-25 17:46:36','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1948,'AAAL0n///zU='),(46,'2010-12-01 14:19:32','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nSuperseded with http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1987',1949,'AAAL0n///kU='),(46,'2010-11-25 09:25:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',1949,'AAAL0n///z0='),(4,'2010-11-25 21:43:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1950,'AAAL0n///x8='),(4,'2010-11-25 21:43:56','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- fixed minor style nit\n- rebased to current master\n\nthanks Mathias and Stefan :-)',1950,'AAAL0n///yA='),(4,'2010-11-25 21:42:13','Uploaded patch set 3.',1950,'AAAL0n///yE='),(46,'2010-11-25 16:17:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',1950,'AAAL0n///zc='),(4,'2010-11-28 23:45:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1951,'AAAL0n///rc='),(4,'2010-11-28 23:44:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',1951,'AAAL0n///rg='),(4,'2010-11-28 23:45:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1951,'AAAL0n///rY='),(6,'2010-11-25 14:02:42','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nhau wech',1952,'AAAL0n///zo='),(2,'2010-11-26 10:45:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1953,'AAAL0n///vk='),(2,'2010-11-26 10:45:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1953,'AAAL0n///vo='),(46,'2010-11-26 09:50:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nRetested on my machine, all fine.',1953,'AAAL0n///wU='),(6,'2010-11-25 14:01:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',1953,'AAAL0n///zs='),(2,'2010-11-26 10:48:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1954,'AAAL0n///vc='),(2,'2010-11-26 10:48:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1954,'AAAL0n///vg='),(4,'2010-11-28 01:02:05','Uploaded patch set 4.',1955,'AAAL0n///s0='),(4,'2010-11-28 00:55:59','Uploaded patch set 3.',1955,'AAAL0n///s4='),(4,'2010-11-28 00:41:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1955,'AAAL0n///s8='),(4,'2010-11-28 01:02:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1955,'AAAL0n///ss='),(4,'2010-11-28 01:02:35','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1955,'AAAL0n///sw='),(2,'2010-11-26 10:50:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1956,'AAAL0n///vQ='),(2,'2010-11-26 10:50:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks good.',1956,'AAAL0n///vU='),(2,'2010-11-26 10:45:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1957,'AAAL0n///vs='),(2,'2010-11-26 10:45:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1957,'AAAL0n///vw='),(100,'2010-11-26 08:44:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1957,'AAAL0n///wY='),(5,'2010-11-25 23:30:39','Patch Set 1: (6 inline comments)\n\n',1957,'AAAL0n///xI='),(5,'2010-11-25 23:30:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',1957,'AAAL0n///xM='),(1,'2010-11-25 18:00:13','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\n',1957,'AAAL0n///ys='),(2,'2010-11-26 11:04:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1958,'AAAL0n///vI='),(2,'2010-11-26 11:04:49','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1958,'AAAL0n///vM='),(5,'2010-11-25 23:44:50','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1958,'AAAL0n///w0='),(5,'2010-11-25 23:44:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1958,'AAAL0n///w4='),(100,'2010-11-26 08:40:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',1958,'AAAL0n///wc='),(1,'2010-11-25 18:01:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1958,'AAAL0n///yk='),(2,'2010-11-25 20:30:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1959,'AAAL0n///yI='),(2,'2010-11-25 20:30:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1959,'AAAL0n///yM='),(4,'2010-11-26 10:31:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1960,'AAAL0n///v0='),(4,'2010-11-26 10:31:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1960,'AAAL0n///v4='),(17,'2010-11-30 16:22:55','Patch Set 7:\n\nFWIW, http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf  and follow Figure 1 (page 1).',1961,'AAAL0n///m8='),(17,'2010-11-30 18:57:22','Patch Set 7:\n\nOk, thanks for clarifying. So in the case of pair-programming I think it\'s a mixture of figure 1 and figure 2. Both take the same path so they can be assumed similar. The 250 lines of code limitation doesn\'t apply in this path.',1961,'AAAL0n///mM='),(4,'2010-11-30 16:59:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1961,'AAAL0n///ms='),(4,'2010-11-30 16:59:04','Patch Set 7:\n\nI asked for PMC supervision since I was not sure if figure 2 would apply for changes created by a committer pair-programming with a non-committer (therefore Edwin is also mentioned in the copyright statements). And this change is well beyond 250 LOC.',1961,'AAAL0n///mw='),(44,'2010-11-30 10:18:33','Uploaded patch set 6.',1961,'AAAL0n///n0='),(17,'2010-11-30 16:21:35','Patch Set 7: IP review completed\n\nOk, so maybe the \'IP Clean\' is mis-leading. What is really necessary here is a \'Under Supervision of the PMC\'. So yes, the code is in line with the project goals. :)',1961,'AAAL0n///nA='),(4,'2010-11-30 14:36:09','Uploaded patch set 7.',1961,'AAAL0n///nc='),(17,'2010-11-30 16:16:44','Patch Set 7:\n\nJens is already a committer so there is no need for a PMC IP approval. Or is it because of Edwin Kempin?',1961,'AAAL0n///nE='),(4,'2010-11-30 14:50:02','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved\n\n- rebased to current master\n\nI think this change is ready for submission.\n\nSince Edwin substantially participated in this change and he is not a committer I think we need PMC approval according to figure 2 of the Eclipse legal process poster.\n\n@ Chris | Gunnar: could you PMC approve this change and set the IP Clean flag ?',1961,'AAAL0n///nY='),(4,'2010-11-29 23:04:37','Patch Set 4: (13 inline comments)\n\n',1961,'AAAL0n///o0='),(4,'2010-11-29 23:02:02','Uploaded patch set 5.',1961,'AAAL0n///o8='),(4,'2010-11-29 23:06:51','Patch Set 5:\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed minor style nits and fixed formatting according to project rules\n\nLGTM\n\nI wonder if we should flush the secure store when the credentials have been put in order to prevent loss of credentials in case Eclipse crashes later.',1961,'AAAL0n///ow='),(44,'2010-11-29 17:13:59','Uploaded patch set 4.',1961,'AAAL0n///qM='),(4,'2010-11-28 23:05:47','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\nLooks quite good already.\n\nAfter successfully storing the credentials I found that I used the wrong user name for my test repository on github. I didn\'t find a way to update the stored credentials for this repository. I think this is required.\n\nAs a workaround I deleted the secure store (unfortunately only the complete store can be deleted but not individual entries). After that I could not push anymore:\n\nAn internal error occurred during: \"Push to HelloWorld - origin\".\nPreference node \"null\" has been removed.',1961,'AAAL0n///rk='),(44,'2010-11-26 17:12:01','Patch Set 2: (5 inline comments)\n\n',1961,'AAAL0n///t8='),(44,'2010-11-26 11:52:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',1961,'AAAL0n///u0='),(4,'2010-11-26 16:38:55','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',1961,'AAAL0n///uc='),(44,'2010-11-26 17:10:09','Uploaded patch set 3.',1961,'AAAL0n///uU='),(4,'2010-11-28 22:06:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1962,'AAAL0n///sI='),(4,'2010-11-28 22:06:19','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1962,'AAAL0n///sM='),(4,'2010-11-28 22:05:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',1962,'AAAL0n///sQ='),(4,'2010-11-28 21:36:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1963,'AAAL0n///sg='),(4,'2010-11-28 21:36:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',1963,'AAAL0n///sk='),(4,'2010-11-28 21:35:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',1963,'AAAL0n///so='),(4,'2010-11-28 21:51:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',1964,'AAAL0n///sc='),(4,'2010-11-28 21:52:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1964,'AAAL0n///sU='),(4,'2010-11-28 21:52:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1964,'AAAL0n///sY='),(4,'2010-11-29 23:19:22','Uploaded patch set 2.',1965,'AAAL0n///oc='),(4,'2010-11-29 23:20:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1965,'AAAL0n///oU='),(4,'2010-11-29 23:20:03','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',1965,'AAAL0n///oY='),(4,'2010-11-29 23:44:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1966,'AAAL0n///oA='),(4,'2010-11-29 23:44:53','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master\n\nthanks Remy, good catch :-)',1966,'AAAL0n///oE='),(4,'2010-11-29 23:34:57','Uploaded patch set 4.',1966,'AAAL0n///oI='),(63,'2010-11-28 22:58:22','Uploaded patch set 3.',1966,'AAAL0n///rs='),(63,'2010-11-28 22:57:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',1966,'AAAL0n///rw='),(46,'2010-12-02 07:55:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1967,'AAAL0n///iA='),(46,'2010-12-02 07:48:34','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nCool.',1967,'AAAL0n///ic='),(46,'2010-12-02 07:55:14','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nPatch 3 was not the current master...',1967,'AAAL0n///iE='),(46,'2010-12-02 07:54:40','Uploaded patch set 4.',1967,'AAAL0n///iI='),(NULL,'2010-12-02 07:52:48','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.',1967,'AAAL0n///iM='),(46,'2010-12-02 07:52:47','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased to current master',1967,'AAAL0n///iQ='),(46,'2010-12-02 07:52:13','Uploaded patch set 3.',1967,'AAAL0n///iU='),(NULL,'2010-12-02 07:48:35','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',1967,'AAAL0n///iY='),(4,'2010-11-29 16:32:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1967,'AAAL0n///qc='),(1,'2010-11-30 18:45:47','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI\'m going to cherry-pick this in to fix the one minor issue.  Thanks.',1968,'AAAL0n///mk='),(1,'2010-11-30 18:56:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1968,'AAAL0n///mQ='),(1,'2010-11-30 18:56:37','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1968,'AAAL0n///mU='),(1,'2010-11-30 18:55:04','Uploaded patch set 4.',1968,'AAAL0n///mY='),(6,'2010-11-30 10:34:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',1968,'AAAL0n///nk='),(6,'2010-11-30 10:30:38','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1968,'AAAL0n///no='),(6,'2010-11-30 10:28:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',1968,'AAAL0n///ns='),(1,'2010-11-29 23:18:40','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1968,'AAAL0n///og='),(4,'2010-12-01 09:56:20','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nfixed typo in uitext.properties',1969,'AAAL0n///lc='),(4,'2010-12-01 09:55:25','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1969,'AAAL0n///lg='),(4,'2010-12-01 09:54:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',1969,'AAAL0n///lk='),(4,'2010-12-01 09:56:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1969,'AAAL0n///lY='),(6,'2010-12-01 08:38:03','Uploaded patch set 2.',1969,'AAAL0n///mA='),(6,'2010-11-29 16:56:07','Patch Set 1:\n\nDepends on JGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,1968',1969,'AAAL0n///qU='),(1,'2010-11-29 23:21:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1970,'AAAL0n///oM='),(1,'2010-11-29 23:21:08','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1970,'AAAL0n///oQ='),(6,'2010-11-29 16:59:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',1970,'AAAL0n///qQ='),(1,'2010-11-30 18:45:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1971,'AAAL0n///mc='),(1,'2010-11-30 18:45:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1971,'AAAL0n///mg='),(4,'2010-11-30 15:03:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1972,'AAAL0n///nQ='),(4,'2010-11-30 15:03:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1972,'AAAL0n///nU='),(2,'2010-12-01 15:22:12','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nLooks ok.',1973,'AAAL0n///j0='),(4,'2010-12-01 15:40:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1973,'AAAL0n///jg='),(4,'2010-12-01 15:40:21','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nfixed some typos',1973,'AAAL0n///jk='),(4,'2010-12-01 15:33:34','Uploaded patch set 5.',1973,'AAAL0n///jo='),(44,'2010-12-01 12:13:31','Uploaded patch set 4.',1973,'AAAL0n///k8='),(44,'2010-12-01 12:06:41','Uploaded patch set 3.',1973,'AAAL0n///lA='),(4,'2010-12-01 10:22:56','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nIf I leave the user and password field empty to clear the stored credentials this data seems not to be persisted. E.g. if I want to clear valid user / password values stored in secure store by leaving the fields empty in the \"Change credentials\" dialog I still can successfully connect (which shows that user/password have not been replaced by empty string).',1973,'AAAL0n///lE='),(44,'2010-12-01 09:32:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',1973,'AAAL0n///ls='),(44,'2010-12-01 09:20:43','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',1973,'AAAL0n///lw='),(4,'2010-11-30 16:54:36','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',1973,'AAAL0n///m0='),(2,'2010-12-01 15:15:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1974,'AAAL0n///kA='),(2,'2010-12-01 15:15:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, yay for commands.',1974,'AAAL0n///kE='),(46,'2010-12-01 14:33:43','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',1974,'AAAL0n///kI='),(46,'2010-12-01 14:31:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',1974,'AAAL0n///kQ='),(4,'2010-12-01 10:06:57','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1974,'AAAL0n///lQ='),(4,'2010-12-01 08:01:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1975,'AAAL0n///mE='),(4,'2010-12-01 08:01:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1975,'AAAL0n///mI='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:07:04','Uploaded patch set 2.',1976,'AAAL0n///h0='),(NULL,'2010-12-02 08:06:30','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.',1976,'AAAL0n///h4='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:06:29','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGreat. We should add some tests soon.',1976,'AAAL0n///h8='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:09:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1976,'AAAL0n///hc='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:09:21','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1976,'AAAL0n///hg='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:09:00','Uploaded patch set 3.',1976,'AAAL0n///hk='),(NULL,'2010-12-02 08:07:41','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.',1976,'AAAL0n///ho='),(NULL,'2010-12-02 08:07:24','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.',1976,'AAAL0n///hs='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:07:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased',1976,'AAAL0n///hw='),(46,'2010-12-01 12:38:35','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBotched patch set',1977,'AAAL0n///k4='),(46,'2010-12-01 12:38:44','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBotched patch set',1978,'AAAL0n///k0='),(46,'2010-12-01 12:38:53','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBotched patch set',1979,'AAAL0n///kw='),(46,'2010-12-01 12:39:14','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBotched patch set',1980,'AAAL0n///ks='),(46,'2010-12-01 14:06:53','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nBotched patch set',1981,'AAAL0n///kg='),(46,'2010-12-01 13:33:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',1981,'AAAL0n///kk='),(46,'2010-12-01 14:07:00','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nBotched patch set',1982,'AAAL0n///kc='),(46,'2010-12-01 13:30:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',1982,'AAAL0n///ko='),(46,'2010-12-01 14:07:07','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBotched patch set',1983,'AAAL0n///kY='),(2,'2010-12-03 02:19:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1984,'AAAL0n///dA='),(2,'2010-12-03 02:19:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nLooks good.',1984,'AAAL0n///dE='),(4,'2010-12-07 12:46:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',1985,'AAAL03////0='),(2,'2010-12-07 14:19:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1985,'AAAL03////o='),(2,'2010-12-07 14:19:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',1985,'AAAL03////s='),(46,'2010-12-07 12:36:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',1986,'AAAL03////4='),(2,'2010-12-07 14:34:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1986,'AAAL03////g='),(2,'2010-12-07 14:34:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1986,'AAAL03////k='),(4,'2010-12-07 12:49:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nnow it works :-) \n\njgit missed to write the stopped-sha file which apparently prevented git 1.7.1 to work properly, also successfully tested with git 1.7.3.2',1986,'AAAL03////w='),(4,'2010-12-06 11:51:05','Patch Set 1:\n\nI am not refering to an egit change here, I\'ll try to pack my sample repository and send it across.',1986,'AAAL0n///Tk='),(46,'2010-12-06 08:38:18','Patch Set 1:\n\nI don\'t seem to be able to reproduce this. First of all, I can\'t find the egit change you are referring to. I tried to search with both \"change:Ie694e09b\" and \"Ie694e09b\" with no result.\nI tried a few combinations with parallel changes on the same line of the same file in two branches but didn\'t see the behavior you are describing.',1986,'AAAL0n///Ts='),(4,'2010-12-05 18:44:02','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\ntried the following scenario with egit (using egit change Ie694e09b) in a test repository:\n- checkout \"master\"\n- create branch \"other\" based on \"master\"\n- on branch \"master\" create two commits in a row each changing the same line in file Test.java\n- on branch \"other\" create again two commits changing the same line in Test.java as the commits on branch master to create conflicts on both changes\n-  click \"Rebase\" on branch \"master\" to rebase \"other\" to \"master\"\n- this stops in egit with conflict\n- erraneously the second commit from the \"other\" branch is applied first on top of \"master\"\n- use egit merge tool to resolve the conflict and \"Add\" it to mark the conflict as resolved\n- in native git run \"git --continue\"\n- this brings up the commit message of the first commit on \"other\" in vi\n- save the commit message, native git complains:\n[d029788@WDFM00251943A HelloWorld (other +|REBASE-i)]$ git rebase --continue\n[detached HEAD dc8272d] other 1\n 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)\ncat: /Users/d029788/src/tmp/HelloWorld/.git/rebase-merge/stopped-sha: No such file or directory\nFinished one cherry-pick.\n# Not currently on any branch.\nnothing to commit (working directory clean)\nCould not apply 4dd6e05... other 2\n\n- 4dd6e05 is the second commit on \"other\"\n- .git/rebase-merge/stopped-sha contains the abbreviated commitId of the second commit on \"other\" : 4dd6e05\n- replaced this with the full commitId 4dd6e05e0943f280d0907fbf464ff97944ca39f3 for the same commit\n- rerun \"git rebase --continue\" from native git\n- this time the command succeeds \n- result: only one commit was created on top of \"master\", it has the commit message from the first commit on \"other\" and the content from the second commit on \"other\"\n\nSo it looks like rebasing more than one conflicting change to another branch doesn\'t work yet properly and also the file \"stopped-sha\" isn\'t handled properly',1986,'AAAL0n///Ww='),(46,'2010-12-07 18:23:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',1987,'AAAL03///+M='),(4,'2010-12-08 11:58:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1987,'AAAL03///5U='),(4,'2010-12-08 11:58:50','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1987,'AAAL03///5Y='),(46,'2010-12-08 07:35:23','Uploaded patch set 3.',1987,'AAAL03///60='),(46,'2010-12-08 07:36:18','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1987,'AAAL03///6o='),(4,'2010-12-08 00:40:37','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nlooks good, some minor style nits',1987,'AAAL03///8U='),(2,'2010-12-01 15:26:25','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\ndidn\'t intend to push this yet',1988,'AAAL0n///jw='),(2,'2010-12-02 22:18:30','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nI\'ll abandon this for now.',1989,'AAAL0n///eI='),(1,'2010-12-01 18:08:43','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI don\'t think you need to set the repo field in the command during clone.  Instead it starts to sound like Clone and Init cannot be GitCommand types, because they don\'t always start out with a Repository.  But that might be OK, they can\'t be created by a Git type either because the Git type needs a Repository and we don\'t have one yet.',1989,'AAAL0n///jI='),(2,'2010-12-01 15:31:57','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nneed to rebase this without the dependency on clonecommand',1989,'AAAL0n///js='),(4,'2010-12-01 15:46:37','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1989,'AAAL0n///jY='),(4,'2010-12-01 21:18:38','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- fixed style nit\n- externalized string',1990,'AAAL0n///i0='),(4,'2010-12-01 21:16:12','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',1990,'AAAL0n///i4='),(4,'2010-12-01 21:15:49','Uploaded patch set 3.',1990,'AAAL0n///i8='),(4,'2010-12-01 21:18:51','Patch Set 3:\n\n- fixed style nit\n- externalized string',1990,'AAAL0n///is='),(4,'2010-12-01 21:18:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1990,'AAAL0n///iw='),(44,'2010-12-01 16:44:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',1990,'AAAL0n///jQ='),(4,'2010-12-01 21:28:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1991,'AAAL0n///ik='),(4,'2010-12-01 21:28:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1991,'AAAL0n///io='),(63,'2010-12-01 18:05:20','Patch Set 1:\n\nJust wanted to note that JDT _will_ notice these problems 3.7, it\'s how I found this problem actually. :)',1991,'AAAL0n///jM='),(2,'2010-12-02 14:48:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1992,'AAAL0n///fc='),(2,'2010-12-02 14:48:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',1992,'AAAL0n///fg='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:12:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1993,'AAAL0n///hU='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:12:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLGTM',1993,'AAAL0n///hY='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:13:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1994,'AAAL0n///hM='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:13:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLGTM',1994,'AAAL0n///hQ='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:13:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1995,'AAAL0n///hE='),(46,'2010-12-02 08:13:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLGTM',1995,'AAAL0n///hI='),(4,'2010-12-02 12:11:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1996,'AAAL0n///gc='),(4,'2010-12-02 12:11:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1996,'AAAL0n///gY='),(4,'2010-12-02 13:47:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1997,'AAAL0n///fk='),(4,'2010-12-02 13:47:07','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n\nwe should do the same for the dialogs, I found the ? button on the following dialogs :\n- Team > Synchronize\n- Team > Merge\n- Team > Branch\n- Team > Tag',1997,'AAAL0n///fo='),(4,'2010-12-02 13:45:51','Uploaded patch set 3.',1997,'AAAL0n///fs='),(100,'2010-12-02 09:15:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',1997,'AAAL0n///g8='),(100,'2010-12-02 11:34:18','Patch Set 2:\n\nI have opened a bug / request for enhancement (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=331638) that addresses the issue of missing context specific help. I think that we should remove the button until then.',1997,'AAAL0n///gk='),(63,'2010-12-02 11:19:36','Patch Set 2:\n\nShouldn\'t we be adding help support instead of disabling it? Or is the intent here to disable it for now and then add them one by one?',1997,'AAAL0n///go='),(100,'2010-12-02 09:10:12','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nExtract changes of UI texts into separate commit.',1997,'AAAL0n///hA='),(4,'2010-12-02 22:17:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1998,'AAAL0n///eM='),(49,'2010-12-02 21:51:12','Patch Set 1:\n\nTested class GitResourceVariantTree never uses getByteStore() from ResourceVariantTree therefore the null value can be passed here.\n\nIf in feature GitResourceVariantTree will use byte store from parent class we will get here NPE, as you mentioned, but then this test should be fixed.',1998,'AAAL0n///eo='),(4,'2010-12-02 22:17:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1998,'AAAL0n///eQ='),(49,'2010-12-02 21:58:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',1998,'AAAL0n///eU='),(4,'2010-12-02 09:56:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nPassing null instead of a ResourceVariantByteStore instance could lead to NPEs in ResourceTreeVariant which doesn\'t check for null-ness when using the store field except if you can ensure that the affected methods of this class are never used from this test.',1998,'AAAL0n///g0='),(100,'2010-12-03 11:34:45','Uploaded patch set 4.',1999,'AAAL0n///cc='),(4,'2010-12-03 13:43:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',1999,'AAAL0n///cU='),(4,'2010-12-03 13:43:56','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',1999,'AAAL0n///cY='),(4,'2010-12-02 22:47:22','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',1999,'AAAL0n///d0='),(100,'2010-12-02 18:28:24','Uploaded patch set 3.',1999,'AAAL0n///fI='),(46,'2010-12-02 17:06:23','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\n',1999,'AAAL0n///fM='),(46,'2010-12-02 17:06:14','Patch Set 2: Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nI think we shouldn\'t have periods at the end of the message texts...',1999,'AAAL0n///fQ='),(100,'2010-12-02 16:12:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',1999,'AAAL0n///fY='),(46,'2010-12-02 10:11:45','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThe issue is that a label text is re-used as error message. Please use a new text without & for the error message.',1999,'AAAL0n///gs='),(4,'2010-12-02 12:29:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2000,'AAAL0n///gE='),(4,'2010-12-02 12:29:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',2000,'AAAL0n///gI='),(4,'2010-12-02 12:29:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',2000,'AAAL0n///gM='),(4,'2010-12-02 12:30:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2001,'AAAL0n///f8='),(4,'2010-12-02 12:30:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2001,'AAAL0n///gA='),(4,'2010-12-02 13:22:10','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- removed commented out code',2002,'AAAL0n///f0='),(4,'2010-12-02 13:21:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',2002,'AAAL0n///f4='),(4,'2010-12-02 13:22:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2002,'AAAL0n///fw='),(4,'2010-12-13 23:12:06','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- rebased to current master\n- resolved conflicts\n\nGitCloneWizardTest is failing, this needs to be investigated\n\norg.junit.ComparisonFailure: expected:<[fix]> but was:<[]>\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:123)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:145)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBotAssert.assertText(SWTBotAssert.java:153)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.common.WorkingCopyPage.assertBranch(WorkingCopyPage.java:34)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.wizards.clone.GitCloneWizardTest.alteringSomeParametersDuringClone(GitCloneWizardTest.java:218)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.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:680)',2003,'AAAL1n///+M='),(4,'2010-12-13 23:08:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',2003,'AAAL1n///+Q='),(4,'2010-12-14 17:23:18','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\naccepted on stable-0.10, will be merged back from there when we merge back the release',2003,'AAAL1n///9A='),(46,'2010-12-14 09:37:34','Uploaded patch set 3.',2003,'AAAL1n///9k='),(4,'2010-12-02 23:00:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2004,'AAAL0n///ds='),(4,'2010-12-02 23:00:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nlooks good, we will re-add the help buttons as soon as we add context sensitive help',2004,'AAAL0n///dw='),(100,'2010-12-02 18:44:03','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed dependency',2004,'AAAL0n///fA='),(100,'2010-12-02 18:43:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',2004,'AAAL0n///fE='),(2,'2010-12-02 16:52:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nThis probably makes sense. In the future, we should attach help to these dialogs once we create some help contexts within our doc plug-in. However, we aren\'t there yet.',2004,'AAAL0n///fU='),(46,'2010-12-03 08:01:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',2005,'AAAL0n///c8='),(4,'2010-12-03 08:26:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2005,'AAAL0n///co='),(4,'2010-12-03 08:26:26','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2005,'AAAL0n///cs='),(46,'2010-12-03 08:02:54','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2005,'AAAL0n///cw='),(4,'2010-12-03 00:06:48','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2005,'AAAL0n///dg='),(63,'2010-12-02 19:18:30','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2005,'AAAL0n///e4='),(100,'2010-12-03 13:47:31','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis issue seems to be specific to some plattforms. I have create a bug (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=331764) to explain the error in more detail. There are also screenshots attached to the bug that should make it easier to understand.',2006,'AAAL0n///cQ='),(63,'2010-12-02 23:54:15','Patch Set 1:\n\nI don\'t understand what this buys me. In fact, I don\'t think it is obvious to the user what the difference between the selected projects and the checked projects is.',2006,'AAAL0n///do='),(46,'2011-01-26 11:08:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2006,'AAAL2n///Pc='),(46,'2011-01-26 11:08:03','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2006,'AAAL2n///Pg='),(46,'2011-01-26 11:07:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',2006,'AAAL2n///Pk='),(NULL,'2011-01-26 11:07:17','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.',2006,'AAAL2n///Po='),(NULL,'2011-01-26 10:30:36','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.',2006,'AAAL2n///Ps='),(46,'2011-01-26 10:30:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2006,'AAAL2n///Pw='),(2,'2010-12-03 19:08:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2007,'AAAL0n///Z0='),(2,'2010-12-03 19:08:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2007,'AAAL0n///Zw='),(49,'2010-12-02 21:55:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2008,'AAAL0n///eg='),(49,'2010-12-02 21:55:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2008,'AAAL0n///ek='),(49,'2010-12-02 21:55:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2009,'AAAL0n///ec='),(49,'2010-12-02 21:55:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2009,'AAAL0n///eY='),(49,'2010-12-02 22:45:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2010,'AAAL0n///d8='),(49,'2010-12-02 22:45:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2010,'AAAL0n///eA='),(4,'2010-12-03 14:09:00','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2011,'AAAL0n///b0='),(4,'2010-12-03 14:09:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2011,'AAAL0n///bs='),(4,'2010-12-03 14:05:15','Uploaded patch set 3.',2011,'AAAL0n///cE='),(49,'2010-12-02 22:32:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',2011,'AAAL0n///eE='),(4,'2010-12-03 14:08:46','Patch Set 2:\n\nrebased',2012,'AAAL0n///b4='),(4,'2010-12-03 14:08:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2012,'AAAL0n///b8='),(4,'2010-12-03 14:09:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2012,'AAAL0n///bw='),(4,'2010-12-03 14:05:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',2012,'AAAL0n///cA='),(63,'2010-12-08 15:58:48','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhere do I see this screenshot? I don\'t see a link here or in Bugzilla. Though I think I know what you\'re talking about.\n\nIt\'s really hard to get it to expand beyond the allocated space because it\'s \"preset\" to be 100%. I think you need to resize the first two or last two columns a few times to (somehow) force the final column to be capable of going beyond the allocated space (100%) of the table. I\'m not aware of any straightforward workarounds off-hand.',2013,'AAAL03///2k='),(46,'2010-12-08 15:31:13','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\nI kind of like that behavior better than the current one, but the problem is that there is no scrollbar anymore that allows me to scroll to the right to see the stuff that doesn\'t fit into the current width of the table (see screenshot). Is there a way to fix this?',2013,'AAAL03///3w='),(46,'2010-12-08 18:12:14','Patch Set 1:\n\nSorry, I got interrupted in the middle of writing this... The attachment is now in bugzilla. If we can\'t resolve that problem, how should we continue then?',2013,'AAAL03///zA='),(2,'2010-12-03 02:12:29','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'m not sure what to do with \'Git\' in this case. At the moment, everyone goes to the \'Git\' class if they want to grab Git API-related commands. This sort of breaks the mold.\n\nAny thoughts here?',2014,'AAAL0n///dQ='),(1,'2010-12-06 23:58:49','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2014,'AAAL0n///R4='),(2,'2010-12-06 22:08:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2014,'AAAL0n///Sc='),(2,'2010-12-06 22:08:54','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood enough now. We can make any changes in the future.',2014,'AAAL0n///Sg='),(2,'2010-12-06 01:01:49','Uploaded patch set 3.',2014,'AAAL0n///UQ='),(1,'2010-12-03 17:24:12','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(7 inline comments)\n\n',2014,'AAAL0n///Z4='),(4,'2010-12-03 21:24:48','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2014,'AAAL0n///Zg='),(1,'2010-12-03 21:30:49','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',2014,'AAAL0n///ZM='),(2,'2010-12-03 20:07:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',2014,'AAAL0n///Zs='),(5,'2010-12-03 08:47:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2015,'AAAL0n///cg='),(5,'2010-12-03 08:47:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2015,'AAAL0n///ck='),(2,'2010-12-03 15:18:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2016,'AAAL0n///bg='),(2,'2010-12-03 15:18:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2016,'AAAL0n///bk='),(8,'2010-12-03 13:58:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2017,'AAAL0n///cI='),(8,'2010-12-03 13:58:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2017,'AAAL0n///cM='),(2,'2010-12-03 15:18:55','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks OK.',2018,'AAAL0n///bc='),(4,'2010-12-03 14:28:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',2018,'AAAL0n///bo='),(2,'2010-12-03 15:18:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2018,'AAAL0n///bY='),(2,'2010-12-03 15:46:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2019,'AAAL0n///bQ='),(2,'2010-12-03 15:46:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nInteresting.',2019,'AAAL0n///bU='),(2,'2010-12-03 15:47:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2020,'AAAL0n///bI='),(2,'2010-12-03 15:47:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is straightforward.',2020,'AAAL0n///bM='),(2,'2010-12-03 15:50:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2021,'AAAL0n///bA='),(2,'2010-12-03 15:50:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is straightforward, thanks findbugs.',2021,'AAAL0n///bE='),(2,'2010-12-03 16:30:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2022,'AAAL0n///a0='),(4,'2010-12-03 16:17:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',2022,'AAAL0n///a4='),(2,'2010-12-03 16:30:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2022,'AAAL0n///aw='),(4,'2010-12-03 16:17:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',2023,'AAAL0n///a8='),(2,'2010-12-03 16:30:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2023,'AAAL0n///ao='),(2,'2010-12-03 16:30:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2023,'AAAL0n///as='),(2,'2010-12-03 16:51:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2024,'AAAL0n///ag='),(2,'2010-12-03 16:51:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2024,'AAAL0n///ak='),(2,'2010-12-03 16:52:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nMatthias is spending a lot of time sifting through findbugs warnings today :)',2025,'AAAL0n///ac='),(2,'2010-12-03 16:52:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2025,'AAAL0n///aY='),(4,'2010-12-05 13:19:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2026,'AAAL0n///X4='),(4,'2010-12-05 13:19:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2026,'AAAL0n///X8='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:09:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2027,'AAAL0n///TQ='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:09:59','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nlooks good.',2027,'AAAL0n///TU='),(4,'2010-12-05 14:00:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\negit change I621645a6 adapts egit to this incompatible change\nso these two changes should be submitted together to prevent breaking the build',2027,'AAAL0n///Xw='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:10:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2028,'AAAL0n///TA='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:10:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nlooks good.',2028,'AAAL0n///TE='),(4,'2010-12-05 14:04:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2028,'AAAL0n///Xs='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:10:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2029,'AAAL0n///S4='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:10:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nlooks good',2029,'AAAL0n///S8='),(4,'2010-12-05 14:18:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2029,'AAAL0n///Xo='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:10:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good',2030,'AAAL0n///S0='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:10:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2030,'AAAL0n///Sw='),(4,'2010-12-05 14:25:15','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2030,'AAAL0n///Xk='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:11:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2031,'AAAL0n///So='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:11:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nlooks good',2031,'AAAL0n///Ss='),(4,'2010-12-05 14:29:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2031,'AAAL0n///Xg='),(1,'2010-12-05 23:10:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2032,'AAAL0n///Wo='),(1,'2010-12-05 23:10:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',2032,'AAAL0n///Ws='),(4,'2010-12-05 14:38:41','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2032,'AAAL0n///Xc='),(1,'2010-12-04 00:38:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',2032,'AAAL0n///Y0='),(1,'2010-12-04 00:40:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2032,'AAAL0n///Yo='),(8,'2010-12-04 08:16:56','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2032,'AAAL0n///YY='),(1,'2010-12-04 00:38:02','Uploaded patch set 3.',2033,'AAAL0n///Y4='),(8,'2010-12-04 08:49:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2033,'AAAL0n///YQ='),(1,'2010-12-04 00:40:03','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2033,'AAAL0n///Ys='),(8,'2010-12-04 08:49:11','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2033,'AAAL0n///YU='),(1,'2010-12-03 21:38:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',2033,'AAAL0n///ZI='),(1,'2010-12-03 21:44:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2034,'AAAL0n///ZA='),(1,'2010-12-03 21:44:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI can\'t believe I missed that.  Thanks!',2034,'AAAL0n///ZE='),(4,'2010-12-05 14:43:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2035,'AAAL0n///XI='),(4,'2010-12-05 14:43:48','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2035,'AAAL0n///XM='),(4,'2010-12-05 14:43:03','Uploaded patch set 3.',2035,'AAAL0n///XQ='),(NULL,'2010-12-05 14:42:04','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.',2035,'AAAL0n///XU='),(4,'2010-12-05 14:42:04','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2035,'AAAL0n///XY='),(1,'2010-12-04 00:37:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',2035,'AAAL0n///Y8='),(1,'2010-12-04 00:39:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2035,'AAAL0n///Yw='),(2,'2010-12-05 15:50:06','Patch Set 1:\n\nIt\'s fine. I would prefer we didn\'t have Connection and friend as inner classes though...',2036,'AAAL0n///W0='),(2,'2010-12-05 15:50:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2036,'AAAL0n///W4='),(2,'2010-12-05 15:50:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nIt\'s fine. I would prefer we didn\'t have Connection and friend as inner classes though...',2036,'AAAL0n///W8='),(1,'2010-12-04 00:42:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2036,'AAAL0n///Yk='),(2,'2010-12-06 01:14:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2037,'AAAL0n///T0='),(2,'2010-12-06 01:14:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2037,'AAAL0n///Tw='),(1,'2010-12-04 00:43:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2037,'AAAL0n///Yg='),(102,'2010-12-05 14:50:59','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nRemoving git-ignore of Intellij files, as requested',2038,'AAAL0n///XE='),(4,'2010-12-05 13:05:13','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI think this should rather go into a file specified by core.excludesfile in your ~/.gitconfig',2038,'AAAL0n///YE='),(1,'2010-12-05 23:25:31','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(9 inline comments)\n\n',2039,'AAAL0n///V4='),(102,'2010-12-06 00:03:20','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2039,'AAAL0n///VE='),(102,'2010-12-06 00:00:12','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nThis change is unnecessary for the effect I\'m trying to achieve (fixing bug 312868).',2039,'AAAL0n///VY='),(1,'2010-12-07 16:38:11','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2040,'AAAL03///+4='),(1,'2010-12-07 22:13:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2040,'AAAL03///+E='),(1,'2010-12-07 22:13:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2040,'AAAL03///+I='),(1,'2010-12-08 01:05:12','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\n',2040,'AAAL03///70='),(102,'2010-12-08 01:05:10','Patch Set 3:\n\nAFAICT this is same as Patch Set 2 with the addition of the FileUtils change? I\'m new to Gerrit, I can\'t see how to pull my review over to Patch Set 3, but the comments would be unchanged in any case :-)',2040,'AAAL03///74='),(1,'2010-12-08 01:19:36','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2040,'AAAL03///7c='),(102,'2010-12-08 01:14:07','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2040,'AAAL03///7k='),(1,'2010-12-08 01:12:12','Patch Set 4:\n\nPlease take another look at patch set 4.  Patch set 3 was basically the same as 2, but rebased over a newer master which introduced FileUtils.delete().',2040,'AAAL03///7s='),(1,'2010-12-08 01:11:15','Uploaded patch set 4.',2040,'AAAL03///7w='),(102,'2010-12-08 00:48:33','Patch Set 2: (4 inline comments)\n\nThis works well on my test repos, but I\'d like the code clarified to show that the streaming is only for blobs, which should tidy up the deferred check method as well.',2040,'AAAL03///8M='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:21:21','Uploaded patch set 3.',2040,'AAAL03///8o='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:11:38','Patch Set 2:\n\nRoberto, were you also able to test the streaming checksum for big blobs that is contained in this change?',2040,'AAAL03///9k='),(2,'2010-12-08 17:31:03','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. Thanks Roberto and Shawn.',2040,'AAAL03///zc='),(2,'2010-12-08 17:30:43','Uploaded patch set 5.',2040,'AAAL03///zg='),(2,'2010-12-08 17:31:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2040,'AAAL03///zY='),(1,'2010-12-06 00:10:03','Patch Set 1: (16 inline comments)\n\n',2040,'AAAL0n///Uo='),(102,'2010-12-06 00:58:51','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2040,'AAAL0n///UU='),(1,'2010-12-05 23:16:02','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nThus far I\'ve only reviewed enough to block this because of the removal of an important safety feature.  I\'ll review more critically and give better comments on the rest of the code.',2040,'AAAL0n///Wg='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:10:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2041,'AAAL0n///TI='),(2,'2010-12-06 15:10:11','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nlooks good',2041,'AAAL0n///TM='),(4,'2010-12-05 13:43:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',2041,'AAAL0n///X0='),(1,'2010-12-06 00:11:33','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nAs I recall, this was intentional:\n\n  $ git branch refs/heads/foo\n  $ git branch\n  * master\n   refs/heads/foo',2042,'AAAL0n///Uk='),(1,'2010-12-13 19:05:30','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nDropping this change, see comments for why.',2042,'AAAL1n////4='),(8,'2010-12-12 23:10:29','Patch Set 1:\n\nI think it is a mistake. There should be a warning. C Git sometime prints a warning when you try to use it. We should have a warning right away when trying to create it, or maybe an error (-f to force creation anyway).',2042,'AAAL1X///9U='),(1,'2010-12-13 19:05:48','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nDropping this change, since its ancestor (which it should have been squashed into anyway) was also dropped.',2043,'AAAL1n////0='),(8,'2010-12-12 23:24:18','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nBy implication, this one is not approved. If it was ok, the test should be in the same commit as the changed code.',2043,'AAAL1X///9A='),(2,'2010-12-06 01:09:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2044,'AAAL0n///UI='),(2,'2010-12-06 01:09:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2044,'AAAL0n///UM='),(2,'2010-12-06 22:11:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2045,'AAAL0n///SM='),(2,'2010-12-06 22:11:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\npedantic but reasonable...',2045,'AAAL0n///SQ='),(2,'2010-12-06 01:10:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2046,'AAAL0n///UA='),(2,'2010-12-06 01:10:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nPedantic but fine.',2046,'AAAL0n///UE='),(2,'2010-12-06 01:14:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2047,'AAAL0n///T4='),(2,'2010-12-06 01:14:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n+',2047,'AAAL0n///T8='),(1,'2010-12-07 00:00:18','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2048,'AAAL0n///Rw='),(2,'2010-12-06 22:09:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2048,'AAAL0n///SU='),(2,'2010-12-06 22:09:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nStraightforward change.',2048,'AAAL0n///SY='),(1,'2010-12-06 23:55:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2049,'AAAL0n///SA='),(1,'2010-12-06 23:55:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2049,'AAAL0n///SE='),(6,'2010-12-13 19:54:59','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWith this change I observe the following:\n - I see the same content below \"staged changes\" as below \"working tree\"\n - the compare editor for those changes shows a comparison between the local version and the staged version, the same as for the content below \"working tree\"',2050,'AAAL1n////o='),(49,'2010-12-13 20:14:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',2050,'AAAL1n////Y='),(2,'2010-12-13 22:06:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2050,'AAAL1n///+c='),(2,'2010-12-13 22:06:29','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2050,'AAAL1n///+g='),(49,'2010-12-07 17:32:02','Uploaded patch set 3.',2051,'AAAL03///+o='),(49,'2010-12-07 17:28:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',2051,'AAAL03///+s='),(4,'2010-12-09 20:51:09','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\nany idea what\'s the performance impact of this change (are there situations where this would copy a lot of arrays ?)',2051,'AAAL1H///8s='),(8,'2010-12-11 17:29:54','Patch Set 3:\n\nThe motivation should be better than just \"findbugs says\" as exposing representation is often done as a tradeoff.',2051,'AAAL1X////Q='),(8,'2010-12-11 18:01:26','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',2051,'AAAL1X///+0='),(4,'2010-12-12 00:53:56','Patch Set 3:\n\nRobin, why do you think IP isn\'t clean here ?',2051,'AAAL1X///98='),(8,'2010-12-12 09:20:10','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nsry, no ip problem here!',2051,'AAAL1X///9w='),(49,'2011-02-15 21:38:22','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nThis have is no longer relevant.',2051,'AAAL23///qQ='),(46,'2011-01-26 12:19:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2052,'AAAL2n///PI='),(46,'2011-01-26 12:19:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nRebased to current master. This fixes two findbugs warnings; a new one is introduced in GitModelBlob, but that\'s probably not quite easy to fix (BUGTYPE EQ_OVERRIDING_EQUALS_NOT_SYMMETRIC).\nWe should look at this again.',2052,'AAAL2n///PM='),(46,'2011-01-26 12:19:08','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased to current master. This fixes two findbugs warnings; a new one is introduced in GitModelBlob, but that\'s probably not quite easy to fix (BUGTYPE EQ_OVERRIDING_EQUALS_NOT_SYMMETRIC).\nWe should look at this again.',2052,'AAAL2n///PQ='),(46,'2011-01-26 12:15:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',2052,'AAAL2n///PU='),(1,'2010-12-07 00:08:17','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',2053,'AAAL0n///RY='),(2,'2010-12-06 23:18:43','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\ntests fail at the moment, need to track down why',2053,'AAAL0n///SI='),(2,'2011-01-28 20:03:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',2053,'AAAL2n///AU='),(2,'2011-01-28 20:01:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',2053,'AAAL2n///AY='),(2,'2011-02-01 14:56:46','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nI\'m happy enough with this implementation now. We can iterate on it to improve it as people use it.',2053,'AAAL2n//+2c='),(2,'2011-02-01 14:56:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2053,'AAAL2n//+2Y='),(2,'2011-02-01 03:32:10','Uploaded patch set 5.',2053,'AAAL2n//+40='),(4,'2011-01-31 22:54:37','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2053,'AAAL2n//+5A='),(2,'2011-01-31 22:38:21','Uploaded patch set 4.',2053,'AAAL2n//+5Q='),(2,'2011-01-31 22:35:25','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nclone() is reserved\n\nWill update to fix white space issues.',2053,'AAAL2n//+5U='),(4,'2011-01-31 22:31:53','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',2053,'AAAL2n//+5Y='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:19:02','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2054,'AAAL03///80='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:19:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2054,'AAAL03///8w='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:18:38','Uploaded patch set 4.',2054,'AAAL03///9A='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 00:17:56','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.',2054,'AAAL03///9E='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:13:27','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2054,'AAAL03///9g='),(4,'2010-12-08 00:16:17','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2054,'AAAL03///9Q='),(4,'2010-12-08 00:08:37','Uploaded patch set 3.',2054,'AAAL03///9s='),(1,'2010-12-07 00:36:59','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nPlease see my comments on ps1 about the API.',2054,'AAAL0n///Qo='),(4,'2010-12-07 00:35:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',2054,'AAAL0n///Qw='),(1,'2010-12-07 00:21:25','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\nThis is a good idea, especially given your next change.  But the style is bugging me a bit.',2054,'AAAL0n///RA='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:19:02','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2055,'AAAL03///84='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:18:38','Uploaded patch set 4.',2055,'AAAL03///88='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:19:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2055,'AAAL03///8s='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 00:17:56','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.',2055,'AAAL03///9I='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:17:53','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2055,'AAAL03///9M='),(4,'2010-12-08 00:08:37','Uploaded patch set 3.',2055,'AAAL03///9o='),(1,'2010-12-07 00:27:15','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2055,'AAAL0n///Q0='),(4,'2010-12-07 00:35:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',2055,'AAAL0n///Qs='),(4,'2010-12-08 00:24:23','Uploaded patch set 4.',2056,'AAAL03///8g='),(4,'2010-12-08 00:14:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',2056,'AAAL03///9c='),(4,'2010-12-07 00:37:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',2056,'AAAL0n///Qk='),(46,'2010-12-09 13:13:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2056,'AAAL1H///+g='),(46,'2010-12-09 13:13:19','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2056,'AAAL1H///+k='),(4,'2010-12-09 12:51:12','Patch Set 5:\n\n- rebased and resolved conflicts\n- fixed some errors caused by trying to delete non-existing files',2056,'AAAL1H///+o='),(4,'2010-12-09 12:50:19','Uploaded patch set 5.',2056,'AAAL1H///+s='),(8,'2010-12-12 09:26:58','Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2056,'AAAL1X///9o='),(2,'2010-12-07 15:57:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple fix.',2057,'AAAL03////c='),(2,'2010-12-07 15:57:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2057,'AAAL03////Y='),(2,'2010-12-07 15:57:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2058,'AAAL03////Q='),(2,'2010-12-07 15:57:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSimple formatting related fix.',2058,'AAAL03////U='),(2,'2010-12-08 22:23:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',2059,'AAAL03///v0='),(4,'2010-12-08 22:22:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nwhere should this icon show up ? I can\'t find it in the egit UI ...',2059,'AAAL03///v4='),(2,'2010-12-08 22:24:35','Patch Set 2:\n\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,2090\n\nbeen messing with improving the commit dialog a bit... will upload a draft change so you can see what I\'m up too...',2059,'AAAL03///vw='),(4,'2010-12-09 08:35:05','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI think this should be squashed with change I3565ac4a7865c987ca6989066cbe1dd7199d9c4c',2059,'AAAL1H////s='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:57:51','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nreplaced by Change I1c5ec794 to retarget for stable-0.11',2059,'AAAL23///54='),(4,'2011-02-07 22:55:15','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nreplaced by Change I1c5ec794 to retarget for stable-0.11',2059,'AAAL23///80='),(46,'2011-02-07 19:16:23','Uploaded patch set 3.',2059,'AAAL23///9I='),(2,'2010-12-07 16:34:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2060,'AAAL03////I='),(2,'2010-12-07 16:34:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood catch. API Tools should catch this type of stuff for us if we ever use it.',2060,'AAAL03////M='),(2,'2010-12-07 17:01:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nStraightforward, thanks.',2061,'AAAL03///+0='),(1,'2010-12-07 17:54:46','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2061,'AAAL03///+Q='),(2,'2010-12-07 17:01:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2061,'AAAL03///+w='),(2,'2010-12-07 17:52:19','Patch Set 2:\n\nSeems fine.',2062,'AAAL03///+c='),(2,'2010-12-07 17:52:19','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nSeems fine.',2062,'AAAL03///+g='),(44,'2010-12-07 17:40:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',2062,'AAAL03///+k='),(2,'2010-12-07 17:52:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2062,'AAAL03///+Y='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:19:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2063,'AAAL03///0c='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:19:50','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2063,'AAAL03///0g='),(1,'2010-12-08 00:21:22','Uploaded patch set 2.',2063,'AAAL03///8k='),(102,'2010-12-08 00:05:47','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nAll looks fine, and worked well on my test repos.',2063,'AAAL03///9w='),(5,'2010-12-08 08:08:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2064,'AAAL03///6g='),(5,'2010-12-08 08:08:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nlooks fine to me. I always wondered why we have this reset() everywhere',2064,'AAAL03///6k='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:16:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2065,'AAAL03///0w='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:16:19','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2065,'AAAL03///1E='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:16:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',2065,'AAAL03///1M='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 16:14:42','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.',2065,'AAAL03///1Q='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:14:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2065,'AAAL03///1U='),(1,'2010-12-08 01:22:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2065,'AAAL03///7Y='),(100,'2010-12-08 15:23:40','Patch Set 1: (10 inline comments)\n\n',2066,'AAAL03///30='),(100,'2010-12-08 15:23:03','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nRebased change on Shawn\'s cleanups. Added unit tests for IndexWorkingTreeDiff filter. One of the tests is failing for reasons we don\'t understand.',2066,'AAAL03///34='),(5,'2010-12-08 15:17:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',2066,'AAAL03///4M='),(100,'2010-12-08 09:58:12','Patch Set 1: (7 inline comments)\n\n',2066,'AAAL03///5c='),(1,'2010-12-08 03:20:07','Patch Set 1:\n\nI just pushed a bunch of IndexDiff cleanups that should really be put in before this goes in.\n\nI don\'t have time to rebase this on top tonight, I\'ll do it tomorrow morning my time if you don\'t get to it before me.',2066,'AAAL03///64='),(1,'2010-12-08 02:29:55','Patch Set 1:\n\nEh, the more I dig into the relevant section of IndexDiff, the more I see that should be fixed.\n\nI\'ll post a bunch of relevant changes later today or early tomorrow my time.',2066,'AAAL03///68='),(1,'2010-12-08 01:36:25','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\nGreat minds think alike... I was starting to write this same code myself 15 minutes ago, and then saw your change pop in my inbox.\n\nI have a few nits that should be cleaned up.  I\'ll cherry-pick and clean up those couple of items, then submit.',2066,'AAAL03///7A='),(1,'2010-12-08 19:48:43','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nI\'m going to upload a replacement patch set in a few minutes that addresses my comments.',2066,'AAAL03///w0='),(1,'2010-12-08 20:53:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',2066,'AAAL03///ww='),(5,'2010-12-09 15:44:02','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2066,'AAAL1H///90='),(5,'2010-12-09 15:33:17','Patch Set 3: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2066,'AAAL1H///98='),(5,'2010-12-09 17:03:17','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2066,'AAAL1H///9c='),(5,'2010-12-09 17:54:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2066,'AAAL1H///9I='),(1,'2010-12-09 16:46:14','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2066,'AAAL1H///9k='),(5,'2010-12-09 17:53:18','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nRebased, fixed a typo in commit message and added back a test for non-recursive TreeWalks',2066,'AAAL1H///9M='),(5,'2010-12-09 17:52:11','Uploaded patch set 5.',2066,'AAAL1H///9Q='),(100,'2010-12-09 16:36:59','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2066,'AAAL1H///9s='),(5,'2010-12-09 17:48:40','Uploaded patch set 4.',2066,'AAAL1H///9U='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2067,'AAAL03///xw='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:17:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2067,'AAAL03///y4='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2067,'AAAL03///yE='),(2,'2010-12-08 17:29:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nCan you rebase and resolve conflicts for this change?',2067,'AAAL03///zk='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 16:11:12','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* Idb176736fa0dc97af372f1d652a94ecc72fb457c\n* I7c449589283a4a6b6e23f2586cd784febdca8bcd\n',2068,'AAAL03///18='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 16:16:19','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 1 of Idb176736, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I7c449589, however the current patch set is 2.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',2068,'AAAL03///1A='),(5,'2010-12-08 08:16:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nof course, that\'s an acceptable change :-)',2068,'AAAL03///6c='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2068,'AAAL03///x8='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2068,'AAAL03///xs='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:17:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2068,'AAAL03///yw='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 16:16:19','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 1 of Idb176736, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I7c449589, however the current patch set is 2.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',2069,'AAAL03///08='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 16:11:12','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* Idb176736fa0dc97af372f1d652a94ecc72fb457c\n* I7c449589283a4a6b6e23f2586cd784febdca8bcd\n',2069,'AAAL03///14='),(5,'2010-12-08 08:17:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2069,'AAAL03///6Y='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2069,'AAAL03///xo='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:17:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2069,'AAAL03///y0='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2069,'AAAL03///yA='),(1,'2010-12-08 16:33:51','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2070,'AAAL03///0Q='),(5,'2010-12-08 08:22:27','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2070,'AAAL03///6Q='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2070,'AAAL03///xk='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:17:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2070,'AAAL03///yo='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2070,'AAAL03///yQ='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 16:16:19','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 1 of Ie842ddc1, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on patch set 1 of Idb176736, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I7c449589, however the current patch set is 2.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',2071,'AAAL03///04='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 16:11:12','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* Ie842ddc147957d09205c0d2ce87b25c566862fd9\n* Idb176736fa0dc97af372f1d652a94ecc72fb457c\n* I7c449589283a4a6b6e23f2586cd784febdca8bcd\n',2071,'AAAL03///10='),(5,'2010-12-08 08:23:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2071,'AAAL03///6M='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2071,'AAAL03///xg='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:17:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2071,'AAAL03///ys='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2071,'AAAL03///yU='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 16:16:19','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 1 of Ie842ddc1, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on patch set 1 of Idb176736, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I7c449589, however the current patch set is 2.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',2072,'AAAL03///00='),(NULL,'2010-12-08 16:11:12','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* Ie842ddc147957d09205c0d2ce87b25c566862fd9\n* Idb176736fa0dc97af372f1d652a94ecc72fb457c\n* I7c449589283a4a6b6e23f2586cd784febdca8bcd\n',2072,'AAAL03///1w='),(5,'2010-12-08 08:29:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI was about to fix some problems with getAssumeUnchanged() by adding more params to WorkingTreeIterator#isModified(...) in my change #2066 (the performance optimized ANY_DIFF). This made the code more ugly and I guess/hope that with this change I can remove that new parameter.',2072,'AAAL03///6I='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2072,'AAAL03///xc='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:17:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',2072,'AAAL03///yg='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2072,'AAAL03///yI='),(5,'2010-12-08 08:30:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2073,'AAAL03///6E='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2073,'AAAL03///xY='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:17:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',2073,'AAAL03///yk='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2073,'AAAL03///yM='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:29','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2074,'AAAL03///x0='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2074,'AAAL03///xU='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:17:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',2074,'AAAL03///yY='),(5,'2010-12-08 08:39:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2075,'AAAL03///54='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:29','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2075,'AAAL03///x4='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:18:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2075,'AAAL03///xQ='),(1,'2010-12-08 18:17:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',2075,'AAAL03///yc='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:11:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2076,'AAAL03///1s='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:11:11','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2076,'AAAL03///2A='),(4,'2010-12-08 15:40:23','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2076,'AAAL03///2w='),(4,'2010-12-08 15:20:29','Uploaded patch set 3.',2076,'AAAL03///4E='),(4,'2010-12-08 15:16:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nfixed .classpath and pom.xml for the new bundle',2076,'AAAL03///4Q='),(4,'2010-12-08 15:15:42','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2076,'AAAL03///4U='),(4,'2010-12-08 15:15:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',2076,'AAAL03///4Y='),(1,'2010-12-08 16:54:50','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2076,'AAAL03///z0='),(1,'2010-12-08 17:47:57','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2076,'AAAL03///zM='),(44,'2010-12-08 17:11:41','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2076,'AAAL03///zo='),(2,'2010-12-08 17:33:43','Patch Set 3:\n\nI believe this is the best course of action for 0.10... for 0.11+ we should look at moving to Jetty 8 assuming that comes out in Indigo...',2076,'AAAL03///zU='),(2,'2010-12-08 17:00:45','Patch Set 3:\n\nThe latest p2 repo of Jetty I\'ve found is...\n\nhttp://download.eclipse.org/jetty/7.1.6.v20100715/repository/',2076,'AAAL03///zw='),(4,'2010-12-08 16:41:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2077,'AAAL03///0I='),(4,'2010-12-08 16:41:41','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2077,'AAAL03///0M='),(44,'2010-12-08 16:18:54','Uploaded patch set 5.',2077,'AAAL03///0o='),(44,'2010-12-08 16:17:28','Patch Set 3: (13 inline comments)\n\n- rebased to current master\n- will add test for failing login in a separate commit',2077,'AAAL03///0s='),(44,'2010-12-08 16:20:12','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2077,'AAAL03///0Y='),(44,'2010-12-08 16:16:11','Uploaded patch set 4.',2077,'AAAL03///1I='),(4,'2010-12-08 15:39:47','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(14 inline comments)\n\nverified successfully, but some room for improvements\n\nmaybe we should add a test with wrong credentials to prove that authentication is really used',2077,'AAAL03///20='),(44,'2010-12-08 14:36:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',2077,'AAAL03///4k='),(44,'2010-12-08 14:35:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',2077,'AAAL03///4o='),(46,'2010-12-08 15:22:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2078,'AAAL03///38='),(46,'2010-12-08 15:22:51','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2078,'AAAL03///4A='),(4,'2010-12-08 15:49:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2079,'AAAL03///2o='),(4,'2010-12-08 15:49:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2079,'AAAL03///2s='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:44:31','Patch Set 1:\n\nThanks Jens. Again my workspace didn\'t refresh properly to catch the compile error... sigh...',2080,'AAAL03///0A='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:44:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThanks Jens. Again my workspace didn\'t refresh properly to catch the compile error... sigh...',2080,'AAAL03///0E='),(2,'2010-12-08 16:44:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2080,'AAAL03///z8='),(46,'2010-12-09 10:53:03','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed an issue: when the last commit is skipped, HEAD was not restored properly. Includes a test for this situation.',2081,'AAAL1H////g='),(46,'2010-12-09 10:49:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',2081,'AAAL1H////k='),(2,'2010-12-09 15:22:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2081,'AAAL1H///+E='),(2,'2010-12-09 15:22:08','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2081,'AAAL1H///+I='),(46,'2010-12-09 15:12:14','Uploaded patch set 3.',2081,'AAAL1H///+Q='),(46,'2010-12-08 18:18:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',2082,'AAAL03///xM='),(46,'2010-12-08 18:16:00','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',2082,'AAAL03///y8='),(46,'2010-12-09 12:46:22','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebased to current master.',2082,'AAAL1H///+0='),(46,'2010-12-09 12:45:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',2082,'AAAL1H///+4='),(46,'2010-12-09 15:12:25','Uploaded patch set 4.',2082,'AAAL1H///+M='),(4,'2010-12-09 20:47:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2082,'AAAL1H///80='),(4,'2010-12-09 20:47:14','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nthanks, with the additional jgit fix this now works :-)',2082,'AAAL1H///84='),(4,'2010-12-09 17:24:47','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWe found a problem when mixing continue and skip steps in a sequence when multiple commits conflict during the overall rebase.\n\nMathias is analyzing that.',2082,'AAAL1H///9Y='),(100,'2010-12-10 16:25:15','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2083,'AAAL1H///7k='),(1,'2010-12-10 16:28:47','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nI\'ll post a new version of this later this morning.',2083,'AAAL1H///7Y='),(1,'2010-12-11 01:17:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',2083,'AAAL1X////g='),(2,'2010-12-13 14:45:40','Patch Set 2:\n\nLooks good.',2083,'AAAL1X///8Q='),(2,'2010-12-13 14:45:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2083,'AAAL1X///8U='),(100,'2010-12-13 08:20:30','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',2083,'AAAL1X///8w='),(2,'2010-12-13 14:45:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2083,'AAAL1X///8Y='),(2,'2010-12-08 21:28:09','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis is the step in the right direction. We may want to consider making this a bit more advance... involving hooks that allow people to modify the commit message... and do something after a commit...',2084,'AAAL03///wg='),(103,'2010-12-08 21:00:05','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWhile this is a basic functional patch, there is still some work to do: Since i am new to EGit contributing and coding, i am not sure, how to handle exceptions correctly, so i would appreciate your feedback about this.',2084,'AAAL03///ws='),(4,'2010-12-09 08:40:28','Patch Set 1:\n\nI think extensions shouldn\'t be able to break the commit dialog, hence if they throw exceptions we should fallback to the un-extended commit dialog to ensure that this important dialog also works if buggy extensions are hooked on.\n\nYeah we should also provide hooks, but I feel this should somehow involve jgit, since we may also want to have the ability to install hooks on jgit level if jgit is used in a different context than EGit.',2084,'AAAL1H////o='),(8,'2010-12-13 05:33:12','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI also agree with Matthias that possible JGit hooks and EGit built-in-extensions like the commit-id handling, should be included.\n\nAn extensive example may be needed to work out the interfaces.',2084,'AAAL1X///80='),(103,'2011-01-17 18:26:35','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nImplemented in change 2260',2084,'AAAL2n///zs='),(2,'2010-12-08 21:21:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2085,'AAAL03///wk='),(2,'2010-12-08 21:21:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nNot bad!',2085,'AAAL03///wo='),(2,'2010-12-08 21:49:35','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\ngah',2086,'AAAL03///wc='),(2,'2010-12-08 21:49:47','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\ngah',2087,'AAAL03///wY='),(2,'2010-12-08 21:55:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2088,'AAAL03///wM='),(2,'2010-12-08 21:55:22','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nFirst step to fixing the build.',2088,'AAAL03///wQ='),(2,'2010-12-08 21:55:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2088,'AAAL03///wU='),(2,'2010-12-08 22:07:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2089,'AAAL03///wA='),(2,'2010-12-08 22:07:53','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nPerfect.',2089,'AAAL03///wE='),(2,'2010-12-08 22:07:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',2089,'AAAL03///wI='),(2,'2010-12-08 23:07:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',2090,'AAAL03///vo='),(2,'2010-12-08 22:25:27','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nstill draft... need an icon to represent amending a commit...\n\nI modified the commit dialog to conserve a bit of space and also add a toolbar and operations that affect the actual commit message...',2090,'AAAL03///vs='),(4,'2010-12-09 08:32:53','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nI like the idea ...\n\nI think we should go one step further:\n- also move \"Configure preferences\" to the toolbar\n- make \"Show untracked files\" a toggle button in the toolbar\n\nI feel the icon for sign-off should contain something like a check mark. The icon for amending is hard to understand, the blueish blur is disturbing.\n\nMaybe we could in addition add a menu in the style of a view menu (don\'t know if that fits to Eclipse UI standards). For beginners a menu is easier to understand. And the little triangle for opening the menu wouldn\'t clutter the UI so it wouldn\'t disturb experienced users.',2090,'AAAL1H////w='),(44,'2010-12-09 12:47:44','Patch Set 2:\n\nGood idea!\nIn the beginning I was a bit confused that I have to look for options at two places. So it would be better to also put \"Show untracked files\" and \"Configure Preferences\" in the toolbar. It would also be nice if there would be preferences for adding signed of and gerrit change id automatically.',2090,'AAAL1H///+w='),(79,'2011-05-21 13:12:16','Patch Set 2:\n\nThis can be abandoned now that Ibd108151f190d11396c2d78b560b1ccaad2ec023 is in.',2090,'AABOJH///8s='),(2,'2011-05-21 13:49:35','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nWe have fixed this now :)',2090,'AABOJH///8Y='),(46,'2010-12-09 11:58:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2091,'AAAL1H////E='),(46,'2010-12-09 11:58:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nMuuuuch better than before.',2091,'AAAL1H////I='),(44,'2010-12-09 13:31:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2092,'AAAL1H///+c='),(44,'2010-12-09 13:31:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2092,'AAAL1H///+Y='),(4,'2010-12-09 11:43:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThat\'s the Jetty version coming with Helios, looks good',2093,'AAAL1H////c='),(4,'2010-12-09 11:43:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2093,'AAAL1H////Y='),(4,'2010-12-09 11:43:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2094,'AAAL1H////M='),(4,'2010-12-09 11:43:45','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThat\'s the version coming with Helios, looks good',2094,'AAAL1H////Q='),(4,'2010-12-09 11:43:39','Patch Set 1:\n\nThat\'s the version coming with Helios, looks good',2094,'AAAL1H////U='),(4,'2010-12-09 20:46:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2095,'AAAL1H///88='),(4,'2010-12-09 20:46:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nthanks this is fixing the problems I showed you in the afternoon',2095,'AAAL1H///9A='),(2,'2010-12-09 23:30:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2096,'AAAL1H///8g='),(2,'2010-12-09 23:30:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2096,'AAAL1H///8k='),(2,'2010-12-09 23:31:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks for adding more tests Philipp.',2097,'AAAL1H///8c='),(2,'2010-12-09 23:31:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2097,'AAAL1H///8Y='),(100,'2010-12-10 11:54:49','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2098,'AAAL1H///70='),(100,'2010-12-10 11:54:59','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',2098,'AAAL1H///7w='),(1,'2010-12-10 00:36:17','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2098,'AAAL1H///8A='),(4,'2010-12-09 23:21:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',2099,'AAAL1H///8o='),(2,'2010-12-09 23:31:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2099,'AAAL1H///8Q='),(2,'2010-12-09 23:31:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2099,'AAAL1H///8U='),(1,'2010-12-10 00:33:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2100,'AAAL1H///8I='),(1,'2010-12-10 00:33:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2100,'AAAL1H///8M='),(4,'2010-12-10 09:56:22','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI\'ll revise that',2101,'AAAL1H///78='),(4,'2010-12-10 23:27:28','Uploaded patch set 3.',2101,'AAAL1H///7I='),(4,'2010-12-10 20:59:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',2101,'AAAL1H///7M='),(1,'2010-12-11 01:11:40','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2101,'AAAL1X////0='),(4,'2010-12-11 23:45:52','Patch Set 3: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2101,'AAAL1X///+o='),(4,'2010-12-12 00:37:13','Uploaded patch set 4.',2101,'AAAL1X///+U='),(2,'2010-12-13 14:48:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2101,'AAAL1X///8E='),(2,'2010-12-13 14:48:26','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2101,'AAAL1X///8I='),(2,'2010-12-13 14:48:09','Uploaded patch set 5.',2101,'AAAL1X///8M='),(8,'2010-12-12 23:20:51','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2101,'AAAL1X///9E='),(2,'2010-12-10 19:43:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2102,'AAAL1H///7Q='),(2,'2010-12-10 19:43:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2102,'AAAL1H///7U='),(4,'2010-12-11 00:04:22','Patch Set 1:\n\nwhich use case is this fixing ?',2103,'AAAL1H///7A='),(105,'2010-12-11 14:23:05','Patch Set 1:\n\nThe context in which I discovered this was when I tried to start the git clone wizard for a given repository (I know, this is not an official API yet - therefore see bug 332316). Anyway, if I have a system that knows about git repositories (e.g. Gerrit Mylyn Integration or Skalli [1]), I\'d want an IDE integration in order to directly clone a repository, instead of messing around with URIs manually.\n\nHaving a parameter in a method and then ignoring it is always a bug. The use case shouldn\'t really matter, I guess...\n\n[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Skalli/Proposal',2103,'AAAL1X////U='),(4,'2010-12-12 01:13:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2103,'AAAL1X///90='),(4,'2010-12-12 01:13:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2103,'AAAL1X///94='),(4,'2010-12-10 23:27:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',2104,'AAAL1H///7E='),(5,'2010-12-11 08:39:25','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI didn\'t reviewed the whole change but I detected one place where I didn\'t like it.',2104,'AAAL1X////Y='),(4,'2010-12-11 23:59:19','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2104,'AAAL1X///+g='),(4,'2010-12-12 00:37:13','Uploaded patch set 3.',2104,'AAAL1X///+I='),(8,'2011-01-15 14:05:23','Patch Set 6: (16 inline comments)\n\n',2104,'AAAL2n///3o='),(4,'2011-01-14 17:06:18','Uploaded patch set 6.',2104,'AAAL2n///5M='),(8,'2011-01-14 07:35:33','Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2104,'AAAL2n///70='),(8,'2011-01-14 07:35:43','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',2104,'AAAL2n///7w='),(2,'2011-01-28 01:51:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2104,'AAAL2n///Dc='),(2,'2011-01-28 01:51:34','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2104,'AAAL2n///Dg='),(4,'2011-01-28 00:12:49','Patch Set 8:\n\n- Oops, thanks for catching this, removed this file\n- also rebased',2104,'AAAL2n///EA='),(4,'2011-01-28 00:11:49','Uploaded patch set 8.',2104,'AAAL2n///EI='),(8,'2011-01-27 23:08:52','Patch Set 7:\n\nWhat is test.stp ?',2104,'AAAL2n///Ek='),(8,'2011-01-27 23:08:51','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWhat is test.stp ?',2104,'AAAL2n///Eo='),(4,'2011-01-26 23:39:38','Uploaded patch set 7.',2104,'AAAL2n///JI='),(4,'2011-01-26 23:38:07','Patch Set 6: (16 inline comments)\n\n',2104,'AAAL2n///JQ='),(4,'2010-12-30 22:20:59','Uploaded patch set 4.',2104,'AAAL2X///00='),(4,'2010-12-30 22:26:38','Patch Set 4:\n\nrebased to current master',2104,'AAAL2X///0k='),(4,'2011-01-10 23:24:42','Patch Set 5:\n\n- rebased\n- silence ignoring return value of mkdirs() in DirCacheCheckout.checkout',2104,'AAAL2X///gI='),(4,'2011-01-10 23:22:22','Uploaded patch set 5.',2104,'AAAL2X///gM='),(1,'2010-12-11 01:13:14','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2105,'AAAL1X////s='),(4,'2010-12-12 00:37:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',2105,'AAAL1X///+M='),(4,'2010-12-12 00:20:41','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2105,'AAAL1X///+Y='),(4,'2011-01-16 17:22:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2105,'AAAL2n///28='),(4,'2011-01-16 17:22:46','Patch Set 5: Build Successful\n\n',2105,'AAAL2n///3A='),(8,'2011-01-15 14:05:44','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2105,'AAAL2n///3k='),(4,'2011-01-14 17:06:18','Uploaded patch set 5.',2105,'AAAL2n///5Q='),(4,'2010-12-30 22:20:59','Uploaded patch set 3.',2105,'AAAL2X///04='),(4,'2010-12-30 22:23:13','Patch Set 3:\n\n- changed error message as suggested by Robin\n- rebased to current master',2105,'AAAL2X///0o='),(4,'2010-12-30 22:22:35','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2105,'AAAL2X///0s='),(8,'2010-12-30 13:43:23','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2105,'AAAL2X///2c='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:20:34','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2105,'AAAL2X///2Q='),(8,'2011-01-11 06:14:07','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2105,'AAAL2X///f0='),(44,'2011-01-11 12:28:22','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nLooks good.',2105,'AAAL2X///fw='),(4,'2011-01-10 23:25:22','Patch Set 4:\n\nrebased',2105,'AAAL2X///gE='),(4,'2011-01-10 23:22:22','Uploaded patch set 4.',2105,'AAAL2X///gQ='),(1,'2010-12-11 01:14:36','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2106,'AAAL1X////k='),(4,'2010-12-12 00:38:43','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2106,'AAAL1X///+A='),(4,'2010-12-12 00:37:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',2106,'AAAL1X///+Q='),(8,'2010-12-12 22:37:53','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2106,'AAAL1X///9c='),(4,'2011-01-14 17:06:17','Uploaded patch set 6.',2106,'AAAL2n///5U='),(4,'2011-01-28 00:14:16','Patch Set 7: (4 inline comments)\n\nalso rebased',2106,'AAAL2n///Ds='),(4,'2011-01-28 00:11:48','Uploaded patch set 8.',2106,'AAAL2n///EM='),(8,'2011-01-27 23:14:35','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',2106,'AAAL2n///EQ='),(4,'2011-01-26 23:39:38','Uploaded patch set 7.',2106,'AAAL2n///JM='),(8,'2011-01-29 22:52:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2106,'AAAL2n//+/M='),(8,'2011-01-29 22:51:46','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2106,'AAAL2n//+/U='),(4,'2010-12-30 22:20:59','Uploaded patch set 3.',2106,'AAAL2X///08='),(4,'2010-12-30 22:46:34','Uploaded patch set 4.',2106,'AAAL2X///0g='),(4,'2011-01-10 23:28:15','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2106,'AAAL2X///f4='),(4,'2011-01-10 23:26:04','Patch Set 5:\n\nrebased',2106,'AAAL2X///gA='),(4,'2011-01-10 23:22:22','Uploaded patch set 5.',2106,'AAAL2X///gU='),(8,'2010-12-31 14:33:53','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2106,'AAAL2X///ys='),(4,'2010-12-13 09:14:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2107,'AAAL1X///8o='),(4,'2010-12-13 09:14:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- original patch is attached to bug 332262\n- replaced explicit call of exists() by using FileUtils.SKIP_MISSING\n\nthanks Mariot for patching this :-)',2107,'AAAL1X///8s='),(2,'2010-12-13 14:44:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2108,'AAAL1X///8c='),(2,'2010-12-13 14:44:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nGood for 0.10',2108,'AAAL1X///8g='),(17,'2010-12-13 11:12:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nApproved.',2108,'AAAL1X///8k='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:55:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2109,'AAAL13///+U='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:55:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2109,'AAAL13///+Y='),(1,'2010-12-13 19:11:22','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nMinor nit about how to do the compare, but otherwise this looks OK.',2109,'AAAL1n////s='),(100,'2010-12-14 12:36:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',2109,'AAAL1n///9Y='),(1,'2010-12-13 18:34:50','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis now running version of Gerrit (2.1.6-12-ge143def) should contain the necessary bug fixes to work with EGit.',2110,'AAAL1n////8='),(4,'2010-12-13 20:26:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2110,'AAAL1n////I='),(4,'2010-12-13 20:26:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n- this now works against egit.eclipse.org :-)\n- I think its conforming to RFC 2617',2110,'AAAL1n////M='),(1,'2010-12-13 18:15:36','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis plus some bug fixes in Gerrit (which I\'ll deploy shortly) should enable EGit to authenticate and push over HTTP.',2110,'AAAL1X///8A='),(4,'2010-12-13 21:45:48','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nexcept typo in commit message this looks good to me',2111,'AAAL1n////A='),(2,'2010-12-13 22:02:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2111,'AAAL1n///+0='),(2,'2010-12-13 22:02:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',2111,'AAAL1n///+4='),(2,'2010-12-13 22:02:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2111,'AAAL1n///+w='),(4,'2010-12-13 21:50:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2112,'AAAL1n///+8='),(2,'2010-12-13 22:03:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',2112,'AAAL1n///+s='),(2,'2010-12-13 22:06:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2112,'AAAL1n///+U='),(2,'2010-12-13 22:06:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2112,'AAAL1n///+Y='),(4,'2010-12-13 20:08:07','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nhurray it works :-)',2113,'AAAL1n////c='),(8,'2010-12-15 21:36:47','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2114,'AAAL13////M='),(1,'2010-12-15 21:07:09','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2114,'AAAL13////s='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:52:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',2114,'AAAL13///+w='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:27:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2114,'AAAL13///0o='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:27:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2114,'AAAL13///0s='),(8,'2010-12-16 08:02:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2114,'AAAL13///9I='),(8,'2010-12-14 23:09:04','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2114,'AAAL1n///8U='),(4,'2010-12-14 08:24:31','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\ncould we add a test for the case when FileSnapshot.isModified() returns false ?',2114,'AAAL1n///9w='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:53:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2115,'AAAL13///+c='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:53:19','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(Rebased earlier in series to submit.)',2115,'AAAL13///+k='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:52:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',2115,'AAAL13///+s='),(8,'2010-12-14 19:49:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',2115,'AAAL1n///80='),(8,'2010-12-14 20:18:26','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',2115,'AAAL1n///8g='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:52:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',2116,'AAAL13////A='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:53:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2116,'AAAL13///+g='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:53:11','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(Rebased earlier in series to submit.)',2116,'AAAL13///+o='),(8,'2010-12-14 20:18:14','Patch Set 1: IP review completed\n\n',2116,'AAAL1n///8k='),(8,'2010-12-14 20:04:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2116,'AAAL1n///8s='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:52:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',2117,'AAAL13///+8='),(2,'2010-12-20 17:06:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2117,'AAAL13///zI='),(2,'2010-12-20 17:05:59','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',2117,'AAAL13///zM='),(1,'2010-12-14 01:11:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',2117,'AAAL1n///+E='),(1,'2010-12-14 00:52:17','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis breaks older applications.  We probably need to avoid clearing the configuration if the file content hasn\'t been modified since the last time it was read.',2117,'AAAL1n///+I='),(8,'2010-12-14 20:18:00','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2117,'AAAL1n///8o='),(1,'2010-12-14 01:11:49','Patch Set 2:\n\nps 2 fixes the existing application issue, so this should be safe to submit.',2117,'AAAL1n///94='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:52:20','Uploaded patch set 3.',2118,'AAAL13///+4='),(1,'2010-12-14 01:11:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',2118,'AAAL1n///+A='),(2,'2010-12-20 17:42:26','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2118,'AAAL2H////8='),(107,'2010-12-20 21:32:29','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/3/ ',2118,'AAAL2H////c='),(107,'2010-12-20 20:42:13','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/2/ ',2118,'AAAL2H////g='),(107,'2010-12-20 22:55:14','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/5/ ',2118,'AAAL2H////Q='),(8,'2010-12-20 21:45:00','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2118,'AAAL2H////U='),(107,'2010-12-21 22:58:52','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/13/ ',2118,'AAAL2H///8E='),(107,'2010-12-21 22:08:28','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/12/ ',2118,'AAAL2H///8I='),(107,'2010-12-21 11:22:03','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/10/ ',2118,'AAAL2H///9Q='),(1,'2010-12-21 00:12:45','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2118,'AAAL2H///9s='),(107,'2010-12-21 11:04:46','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/9/ ',2118,'AAAL2H///9U='),(107,'2010-12-21 11:03:05','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/8/ ',2118,'AAAL2H///9Y='),(1,'2011-03-27 21:00:01','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2118,'AAAL33///+0='),(107,'2011-04-01 22:53:15','Patch Set 4:\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/222/ : SUCCESS',2118,'AAAL33///P4='),(2,'2011-04-01 22:50:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2118,'AAAL33///QA='),(2,'2011-04-01 22:50:57','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nMade the test change, looks good now.',2118,'AAAL33///QE='),(107,'2011-04-01 22:50:41','Patch Set 4:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/222/ ',2118,'AAAL33///QI='),(2,'2011-04-01 22:50:38','Uploaded patch set 4.',2118,'AAAL33///QM='),(107,'2011-03-31 22:58:37','Patch Set 3: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/209/ : SUCCESS',2118,'AAAL33///Yg='),(107,'2011-03-31 22:55:47','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/209/ ',2118,'AAAL33///Yk='),(5,'2011-03-22 22:55:55','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2118,'AAAL3n//+1E='),(1,'2010-12-15 23:52:20','Uploaded patch set 3.',2119,'AAAL13///+0='),(1,'2010-12-14 01:11:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',2119,'AAAL1n///98='),(1,'2011-05-27 17:03:45','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nChristian Halstrick basically did the same thing in change I03b9a137af097ec69c4c5e2eaa512d2bdd7fe080.',2119,'AABOJX///ak='),(9,'2010-12-15 23:20:53','Patch Set 2:\n\nAdded automated tests and fixed some bugs.\nMore automated tests will follow in the next patch set.',2120,'AAAL13////E='),(9,'2010-12-15 23:19:34','Uploaded patch set 2.',2120,'AAAL13////I='),(9,'2010-12-16 02:05:47','Patch Set 3:\n\nAdded more automated tests.',2120,'AAAL13///+M='),(9,'2010-12-16 02:05:16','Uploaded patch set 3.',2120,'AAAL13///+Q='),(9,'2010-12-17 01:35:45','Patch Set 4:\n\nAdded tests for non-note entries inside note tree.\nFixed: Fanout tree wasn\'t collapsing when the number of notes decreases enough.',2120,'AAAL13///7U='),(9,'2010-12-17 01:33:38','Uploaded patch set 4.',2120,'AAAL13///7Y='),(4,'2010-12-23 12:34:27','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(10 inline comments)\n\nWe need PMC supervision for this change as Sasa isn\'t a committer but employee of strategic member company',2120,'AAAL2H///3Q='),(9,'2010-12-28 11:32:43','Patch Set 4: (10 inline comments)\n\n',2120,'AAAL2X///+0='),(9,'2010-12-28 11:31:56','Uploaded patch set 5.',2120,'AAAL2X///+4='),(1,'2010-12-29 21:19:56','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(20 inline comments)\n\n',2120,'AAAL2X///6A='),(1,'2010-12-29 20:48:54','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2120,'AAAL2X///7c='),(1,'2011-01-10 00:18:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2120,'AAAL2X///js='),(1,'2011-01-10 00:18:46','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',2120,'AAAL2X///jw='),(4,'2011-01-08 23:32:32','Patch Set 10: IP review completed\n\n',2120,'AAAL2X///l8='),(4,'2011-01-08 23:31:44','Patch Set 10: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful\n\n- rebased\n- fixed trailing whitespace\n- added JUnit 4 annotations as mentioned by Shawn',2120,'AAAL2X///mA='),(4,'2011-01-08 23:30:20','Patch Set 9: (5 inline comments)\n\n',2120,'AAAL2X///mE='),(4,'2011-01-08 23:27:50','Uploaded patch set 10.',2120,'AAAL2X///mY='),(9,'2011-01-07 13:29:41','Patch Set 9:\n\nAll SAP committers seem to be on holidays these days. Starting from Monday 10th of January most of them will be in the office and I will make sure at least one of them looks at this change.',2120,'AAAL2X///ok='),(1,'2011-01-05 21:12:51','Patch Set 9:\n\nCan we get a +1 from a current SAP committer?  :-)',2120,'AAAL2X///q0='),(2,'2011-01-05 21:04:11','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nConsider this your +1 from the PMC',2120,'AAAL2X///q4='),(9,'2011-01-05 08:37:16','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nMade unit tests compatible with JUnit 4',2120,'AAAL2X///r0='),(9,'2011-01-05 08:36:49','Patch Set 8:\n\nIgnore this one too :-(\nSome tests didn\'t compile due to the switch to JUnit 4.',2120,'AAAL2X///r4='),(9,'2011-01-05 08:34:41','Uploaded patch set 9.',2120,'AAAL2X///r8='),(1,'2011-01-05 18:43:24','Patch Set 9: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nThe tests appear to work without the @Before/@After tags, apparently these are being inherited from the base class?\n\nAnyway, I\'m happy with this version.  Just need PMC +1 to include it.',2120,'AAAL2X///rQ='),(9,'2011-01-05 07:31:31','Uploaded patch set 8.',2120,'AAAL2X///sA='),(9,'2011-01-05 06:38:08','Patch Set 5: (20 inline comments)\n\n',2120,'AAAL2X///sg='),(9,'2011-01-05 07:26:56','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nIgnore this patch set. Unintentionally I rebased it to an intermediate state of origin/master.\nThe next patch set will be rebased to the latest origin/master.',2120,'AAAL2X///sI='),(9,'2011-01-05 06:47:36','Patch Set 6: (4 inline comments)\n\n',2120,'AAAL2X///sM='),(9,'2011-01-05 06:44:43','Uploaded patch set 7.',2120,'AAAL2X///sY='),(1,'2011-01-04 19:17:45','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nI\'m almost happy with this.  A couple of style nits, and two bugs that should be fixed, and then we can get PMC approval to merge it.',2120,'AAAL2X///tE='),(9,'2011-01-04 14:58:06','Uploaded patch set 6.',2120,'AAAL2X///tk='),(4,'2010-12-14 13:27:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2121,'AAAL1n///9Q='),(4,'2010-12-14 13:27:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nthanks, this works now :-)',2121,'AAAL1n///9U='),(44,'2010-12-14 16:28:46','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\npush to stable-0.10 instead',2122,'AAAL1n///9M='),(4,'2010-12-14 17:05:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2123,'AAAL1n///9E='),(4,'2010-12-14 17:05:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nyeah, it\'s better not to automatically put username in HTTP URLs',2123,'AAAL1n///9I='),(44,'2010-12-20 15:26:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2124,'AAAL13///00='),(44,'2010-12-20 15:26:17','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nlooks good.\nFixed remaining stile nits.\nRebased to current master.',2124,'AAAL13///04='),(100,'2010-12-20 10:34:08','Patch Set 5: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2124,'AAAL13///28='),(4,'2010-12-20 14:45:58','Patch Set 6: (4 inline comments)\n\n',2124,'AAAL13///2c='),(44,'2010-12-20 14:45:48','Uploaded patch set 7.',2124,'AAAL13///2g='),(4,'2010-12-20 14:46:31','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',2124,'AAAL13///2Y='),(100,'2010-12-20 10:30:27','Uploaded patch set 6.',2124,'AAAL13///3I='),(44,'2010-12-20 08:42:37','Patch Set 5: IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2124,'AAAL13///3k='),(100,'2010-12-16 19:28:41','Patch Set 5: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2124,'AAAL13///7k='),(100,'2010-12-16 19:23:55','Uploaded patch set 5.',2124,'AAAL13///7w='),(100,'2010-12-16 11:27:22','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2124,'AAAL13///80='),(100,'2010-12-16 11:23:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',2124,'AAAL13///88='),(44,'2010-12-16 16:14:52','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nQuestion: is it right to map the steps inside a wizard to cheat cheet items? Or is processing a wizard related to one item?',2124,'AAAL13///8E='),(100,'2010-12-16 14:22:46','Uploaded patch set 3.',2124,'AAAL13///8k='),(100,'2010-12-16 15:10:46','Uploaded patch set 4.',2124,'AAAL13///8M='),(44,'2010-12-16 13:11:34','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2124,'AAAL13///8o='),(100,'2010-12-16 14:24:18','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2124,'AAAL13///8Q='),(100,'2010-12-16 14:24:08','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2124,'AAAL13///8U='),(100,'2010-12-14 18:00:14','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2124,'AAAL1n///84='),(1,'2010-12-15 04:48:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nNot sure about the emulation in FileAccessJava (see inline comments).',2125,'AAAL1n///7Q='),(1,'2010-12-16 03:03:46','Patch Set 1: (6 inline comments)\n\n',2126,'AAAL13///9s='),(1,'2010-12-16 03:03:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',2126,'AAAL13///9w='),(1,'2010-12-15 04:44:13','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(12 inline comments)\n\nThis is still a work in progress, I pushed it out before i ran out the door.  But I would appreciate comments if anyone has any.',2126,'AAAL1n///7Y='),(8,'2010-12-15 21:31:37','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\n',2127,'AAAL13////U='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:35:26','Patch Set 3:\n\nCan you file a bug?\n\nSigh... file path/system issues after all these years still :)',2127,'AAAL13///0I='),(4,'2010-12-20 15:28:07','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2127,'AAAL13///0k='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:18:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2127,'AAAL13///1M='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:18:45','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2127,'AAAL13///1Q='),(46,'2010-12-20 09:32:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',2127,'AAAL13///3g='),(46,'2010-12-20 09:48:25','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2127,'AAAL13///3M='),(4,'2010-12-17 16:05:31','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2127,'AAAL13///5c='),(44,'2010-12-16 12:34:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',2127,'AAAL13///8w='),(46,'2010-12-16 07:49:26','Patch Set 1: (6 inline comments)\n\n',2127,'AAAL13///9M='),(46,'2010-12-16 07:48:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',2127,'AAAL13///9U='),(1,'2010-12-20 17:51:41','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2127,'AAAL2H////0='),(1,'2010-12-20 19:25:23','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2127,'AAAL2H////k='),(46,'2010-12-20 18:13:51','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2127,'AAAL2H////s='),(4,'2010-12-20 16:03:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2128,'AAAL13///0A='),(4,'2010-12-20 16:03:58','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2128,'AAAL13///0E='),(44,'2010-12-17 21:37:33','Uploaded patch set 6.',2128,'AAAL13///5A='),(44,'2010-12-17 21:35:25','Uploaded patch set 5.',2128,'AAAL13///5E='),(4,'2010-12-17 16:02:44','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nplease rebase and adapt to API change of CloneOperation',2128,'AAAL13///5o='),(44,'2010-12-15 15:45:56','Uploaded patch set 4.',2128,'AAAL1n///64='),(44,'2010-12-15 15:43:26','Uploaded patch set 3.',2128,'AAAL1n///68='),(44,'2010-12-15 15:39:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',2128,'AAAL1n///7A='),(1,'2010-12-15 18:20:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2129,'AAAL1n///6o='),(1,'2010-12-15 18:20:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2129,'AAAL1n///6w='),(1,'2010-12-15 18:20:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2130,'AAAL1n///60='),(1,'2010-12-15 18:20:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2130,'AAAL1n///6s='),(1,'2010-12-15 18:22:31','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nMerge isn\'t necessary.',2131,'AAAL1n///6k='),(8,'2010-12-18 15:35:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2132,'AAAL13///4g='),(8,'2010-12-18 15:43:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2132,'AAAL13///4M='),(NULL,'2010-12-18 15:41:26','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.',2132,'AAAL13///4Q='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:22:24','Patch Set 2:\n\nLooks good.',2133,'AAAL13///08='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:22:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2133,'AAAL13///1A='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:22:21','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2133,'AAAL13///1E='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:22:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',2133,'AAAL13///1I='),(8,'2010-12-18 15:39:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2133,'AAAL13///4c='),(NULL,'2010-12-18 15:46:01','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.',2133,'AAAL13///4E='),(NULL,'2010-12-18 15:43:53','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.',2133,'AAAL13///4I='),(NULL,'2010-12-18 15:41:26','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.',2133,'AAAL13///4U='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:29:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks great. We\'ll eventually replace with CloneCommand once it gets written...',2134,'AAAL13///0c='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:28:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',2134,'AAAL13///0g='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:29:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2134,'AAAL13///0Y='),(NULL,'2010-12-18 15:41:26','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.',2134,'AAAL13///4Y='),(5,'2010-12-17 10:26:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2134,'AAAL13///68='),(8,'2010-12-18 15:33:48','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\nAll good changes, but split or update commit message.',2135,'AAAL13///4k='),(2,'2011-01-19 09:01:38','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nShawn, can you resubmit this for review?\n\nI would like to get this in soon.',2135,'AAAL2n///qc='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:30:47','Patch Set 1:\n\nShawn, any chance this will get looked at for 0.11? Or should we defer?',2135,'AAAL2n//+xA='),(1,'2011-03-07 20:22:20','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nI\'m breaking this apart into multiple changes with better commit messages. Since so much is being broken out, its easier to just abandon this change.',2135,'AAAL3H///iU='),(5,'2010-12-17 06:11:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',2136,'AAAL13///7I='),(NULL,'2011-03-24 12:23:11','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 2 of I40e75328, however the current patch set is 2.\n* Depends on patch set 1 of I81b3842e, however the current patch set is 1.\n* Depends on patch set 10 of Iffb12334, however the current patch set is 12.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',2136,'AAAL3n//+mA='),(5,'2011-03-24 12:23:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2136,'AAAL3n//+mE='),(8,'2010-12-16 08:05:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2137,'AAAL13///9A='),(8,'2010-12-16 08:05:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2137,'AAAL13///9E='),(4,'2010-12-20 15:10:37','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(9 inline comments)\n\n',2138,'AAAL13///1g='),(100,'2010-12-20 10:47:17','Uploaded patch set 3.',2138,'AAAL13///20='),(100,'2010-12-16 19:54:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',2138,'AAAL13///7g='),(100,'2010-12-20 17:17:39','Uploaded patch set 4.',2138,'AAAL13///yg='),(100,'2010-12-20 17:16:50','Patch Set 3: (9 inline comments)\n\n',2138,'AAAL13///yk='),(46,'2011-01-26 11:44:14','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nQuite nice. Just two remarks:\n\nThe link to Help in section \"Destination Git Repository\" is wrong: it points to \"Repository Selection\" under chapter \"Cloning Remote Repositories\" which does not have the dropdown mentioned in the text. Instead it should point to chapter \"Push URI\" under chapter \"Push Wizard\".\n\nUnder \"Push Confirmation\", we should probably link to the corresponding help (Push Wizard -> Push Confirmation) to see the screenshot and explain how to get more detailed information by hovering over the status (perhaps we need to replace the current screenshot with an example where something goes wrong to make this more useful).',2138,'AAAL2n///PY='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:22:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2138,'AAAL2n//+1s='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:22:17','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nI like this, looks good :)',2138,'AAAL2n//+1w='),(100,'2011-02-01 14:09:21','Patch Set 5:\n\nI have changed/added the help links.',2138,'AAAL2n//+3E='),(100,'2011-02-01 14:04:59','Uploaded patch set 5.',2138,'AAAL2n//+3I='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:32:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2139,'AAAL13///0M='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:32:03','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2139,'AAAL13///0Q='),(2,'2010-12-20 15:31:32','Uploaded patch set 5.',2139,'AAAL13///0U='),(46,'2010-12-20 09:35:18','Uploaded patch set 4.',2139,'AAAL13///3c='),(46,'2010-12-16 18:20:15','Uploaded patch set 3.',2139,'AAAL13///70='),(46,'2010-12-16 17:53:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',2139,'AAAL13///74='),(44,'2010-12-16 15:45:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',2139,'AAAL13///8I='),(2,'2010-12-16 17:25:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2140,'AAAL13///78='),(2,'2010-12-16 17:25:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. Time to get a build out to do more testing before we sign and publish :)',2140,'AAAL13///8A='),(46,'2010-12-20 09:47:40','Uploaded patch set 3.',2141,'AAAL13///3Y='),(46,'2010-12-17 10:19:12','Patch Set 2:\n\nAdded a couple of UI tests',2141,'AAAL13///7A='),(46,'2010-12-17 10:18:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',2141,'AAAL13///7E='),(46,'2010-12-22 08:07:40','Uploaded patch set 5.',2141,'AAAL2H///70='),(4,'2010-12-22 00:23:09','Patch Set 4: Build Failed\n\nfollowing test fails on Mac OS X 10.6.5:\n\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.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest.testCheckoutWithNonDeleted(BranchAndResetActionTest.java:183)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 5000 ms.: Could not find shell matching: with text \'Not deleted Files\'\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	... 34 more',2141,'AAAL2H///78='),(46,'2010-12-22 15:00:12','Uploaded patch set 6.',2141,'AAAL2H///7g='),(44,'2010-12-22 13:07:13','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2141,'AAAL2H///7k='),(46,'2010-12-22 08:09:24','Patch Set 5:\n\nOops, this slipped through... The test only makes sense on systems that can not handle deletion of files with open streams... Checking this now before trying to run the test.',2141,'AAAL2H///7w='),(46,'2010-12-21 10:15:55','Uploaded patch set 4.',2141,'AAAL2H///9g='),(4,'2010-12-31 00:29:48','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nOn Mac OS X the following ui tests fail with this change\n\nRerun org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest\ntestResetToLocalBranch(org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest)\norg.junit.ComparisonFailure: Wrong branch expected:<[stable]> but was:<[master]>\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:123)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest.checkoutAndVerify(BranchAndResetActionTest.java:403)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest.testResetToLocalBranch(BranchAndResetActionTest.java:276)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)\n\ntestCheckoutTags(org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest)\norg.junit.ComparisonFailure: Wrong branch expected:<[SomeTag]> but was:<[master]>\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:123)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest.checkoutAndVerify(BranchAndResetActionTest.java:403)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest.testCheckoutTags(BranchAndResetActionTest.java:376)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)',2141,'AAAL2X///0I='),(46,'2011-01-10 09:53:57','Patch Set 7:\n\nUsing a temporary file for checking if the file system has problems deleting open files.',2141,'AAAL2X///i0='),(46,'2011-01-10 09:53:11','Uploaded patch set 7.',2141,'AAAL2X///i4='),(4,'2011-01-10 12:01:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2141,'AAAL2X///ig='),(4,'2011-01-10 12:01:36','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nfixed test failure in BranchAndResetActionTest',2141,'AAAL2X///ik='),(4,'2011-01-10 12:00:32','Patch Set 7: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2141,'AAAL2X///io='),(4,'2011-01-10 11:56:01','Uploaded patch set 8.',2141,'AAAL2X///is='),(4,'2010-12-17 13:09:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2142,'AAAL13///6g='),(4,'2010-12-17 13:09:15','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nsuccessfully tested on galileo sr2 and helios sr1',2142,'AAAL13///6k='),(46,'2010-12-17 12:58:30','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',2142,'AAAL13///6s='),(4,'2010-12-17 02:10:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',2142,'AAAL13///7Q='),(4,'2010-12-17 13:09:39','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nsuccessfully tested on galileo sr2 and helios sr1',2143,'AAAL13///6c='),(46,'2010-12-17 12:58:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',2143,'AAAL13///6o='),(4,'2010-12-17 13:09:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2143,'AAAL13///6Y='),(4,'2010-12-17 02:16:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',2143,'AAAL13///7M='),(49,'2010-12-17 11:23:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2144,'AAAL13///60='),(2,'2010-12-17 14:52:41','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThanks, this has to be implemented via an extension point. We can\'t have a direct dependency on mylyn in egit.core/ui',2144,'AAAL13///6U='),(108,'2011-01-12 19:44:38','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',2144,'AAAL2n////8='),(4,'2011-01-08 23:41:02','Patch Set 1:\n\nI think you replaced that by Change I3e0b8cd23be957c8c6a8199ce6818282fb24dc68 ? So could you abandon this one ?',2144,'AAAL2X///lw='),(4,'2010-12-17 14:56:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2145,'AAAL13///6M='),(4,'2010-12-17 14:56:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2145,'AAAL13///6Q='),(4,'2010-12-17 14:57:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2146,'AAAL13///6E='),(4,'2010-12-17 14:57:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2146,'AAAL13///6I='),(4,'2010-12-17 17:52:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2147,'AAAL13///5I='),(4,'2010-12-17 17:52:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2147,'AAAL13///5M='),(4,'2010-12-17 17:52:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',2147,'AAAL13///5Q='),(4,'2010-12-17 15:31:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2148,'AAAL13///58='),(4,'2010-12-17 15:31:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2148,'AAAL13///6A='),(4,'2010-12-17 15:33:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2149,'AAAL13///50='),(4,'2010-12-17 15:33:19','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2149,'AAAL13///54='),(4,'2010-12-17 15:34:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2150,'AAAL13///5s='),(4,'2010-12-17 15:34:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2150,'AAAL13///5w='),(4,'2010-12-17 17:38:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2151,'AAAL13///5U='),(4,'2010-12-17 17:38:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nthanks, good catch',2151,'AAAL13///5Y='),(2,'2010-12-19 22:48:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2152,'AAAL13///38='),(2,'2010-12-19 22:48:18','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2152,'AAAL13///4A='),(2,'2010-12-19 22:48:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2153,'AAAL13///30='),(2,'2010-12-19 22:48:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks for the catch Robin.',2153,'AAAL13///34='),(4,'2010-12-22 00:33:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2154,'AAAL2H///74='),(8,'2011-01-12 22:45:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2154,'AAAL2n///+c='),(8,'2011-01-12 22:45:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2154,'AAAL2n///+g='),(8,'2010-12-24 00:37:40','Patch Set 5: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2155,'AAAL2H///3A='),(108,'2010-12-23 10:00:29','Uploaded patch set 6.',2155,'AAAL2H///3o='),(108,'2010-12-23 09:35:23','Patch Set 5: (7 inline comments)\n\n',2155,'AAAL2H///3s='),(8,'2010-12-23 09:14:52','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(15 inline comments)\n\n',2155,'AAAL2H///4M='),(108,'2010-12-22 15:18:19','Patch Set 5:\n\nNow I have added the org.eclipse.egit.mylyn plugin. So you can see the full usage of the ICommitMessageProvider extension.\n\nAdditionally feature I have added is the use of a project specific commit template. For this you must enter the project properties and add a template at Task Repository -> Commit Template.\nAndf -of cource - you must add a query in mylyn and activate a task :)',2155,'AAAL2H///7Q='),(108,'2010-12-22 15:13:52','Uploaded patch set 5.',2155,'AAAL2H///7U='),(108,'2010-12-21 20:13:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',2155,'AAAL2H///8c='),(108,'2010-12-21 20:10:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',2155,'AAAL2H///8g='),(4,'2010-12-21 16:30:20','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2155,'AAAL2H///8k='),(108,'2010-12-21 21:11:14','Uploaded patch set 4.',2155,'AAAL2H///8M='),(108,'2010-12-21 10:15:56','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nWhat is my intention of the usage of this extension point:\n\nIn an own plugin org.eclipse.egit.mylyn I can implement the ICommitMessageProvider:\n\npublic class MylynMessageProvider implements ICommitMessageProvider{\n\n   public String getMessage(){\n      ITask task = TasksUi.getTaskActivityManager().getActiveTask();\n      \n      String comment = \n           ContextChangeSet.getComment(...);\n      return comment;\n   }\n}\n\nThis class is the messageprovider I needed to configure in plugin.xml. So I am able to add the mylyn\'s generated commit message for the currently activated task.\n\nI have another idea to add more functions for a really task-focused working with eclipse, git and mylyn.\nIf you are interested we can discuss this on the dev list.',2155,'AAAL2H///9c='),(4,'2010-12-21 00:34:09','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(17 inline comments)\n\ncould you add a change on top of this one illustrating how you intend to use the proposed extension point ?',2155,'AAAL2H///9o='),(108,'2011-01-12 20:09:01','Uploaded patch set 11.',2155,'AAAL2n///+0='),(108,'2011-01-12 20:06:57','Uploaded patch set 10.',2155,'AAAL2n///+4='),(74,'2011-01-17 16:49:45','Patch Set 11: (15 inline comments)\n\nThis change was split up into change 2258 and I34454662',2155,'AAAL2n///0I='),(74,'2011-01-17 15:15:11','Patch Set 11: No score\n\nI\'m working on this right now..',2155,'AAAL2n///1M='),(74,'2011-01-17 13:41:51','Patch Set 11:\n\nSeveral minor issues, doesn\'t apply cleany currently. I think we can handle this today/tomorrow as part of the EGit summit.',2155,'AAAL2n///1Q='),(74,'2011-01-17 13:41:32','Patch Set 11: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(17 inline comments)\n\nSeveral minor issues, doesn\'t apply cleany currently. I think we can handle this today/tomorrow as part of the EGit summit.',2155,'AAAL2n///1U='),(108,'2011-01-18 14:17:32','Patch Set 11: Abandoned\n\nAs wished from Benjamin and Chris...the changes was splitted and merged with the repo.',2155,'AAAL2n///uI='),(2,'2011-01-18 14:10:29','Patch Set 11: Do not submit\n\nThorsten, can you abandon this change?',2155,'AAAL2n///uM='),(74,'2011-01-18 13:50:16','Patch Set 11: Do not submit\n\nThorsten, could you please abondon this change as it was split and merged into the master repo. Thanks for your efforts!',2155,'AAAL2n///uQ='),(15,'2010-12-24 07:47:01','Patch Set 6: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2155,'AAAL2X////s='),(4,'2011-01-08 22:58:07','Patch Set 9: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(15 inline comments)\n\n',2155,'AAAL2X///mg='),(8,'2011-01-08 08:46:14','Patch Set 9: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\naccording to \n\ngit ls-files -z|xargs -0 grep egilt\n\nthere are still a few occurrences.\n\nI\'d like someone from the Mylyn team review this too.',2155,'AAAL2X///ng='),(108,'2011-01-07 08:34:12','Patch Set 9:\n\nNow I have renamed the wrong typed directory (egilt) into the correct name :o\n\nI hope we can now take a look onto the implementation and a +1 :)',2155,'AAAL2X///o4='),(108,'2011-01-07 08:30:55','Uploaded patch set 9.',2155,'AAAL2X///o8='),(108,'2011-01-07 08:23:41','Uploaded patch set 8.',2155,'AAAL2X///pI='),(8,'2011-01-02 01:15:37','Patch Set 7: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThe comment on the bundle name obviously applies everywhere, not just in the file where the issue was commented on.',2155,'AAAL2X///wE='),(108,'2011-01-02 00:55:22','Patch Set 7:\n\nI\'ve updated the sources. So you can do a new review.\nThe main change was to warn if a CommitMessageProvider does not implement the right interface.',2155,'AAAL2X///wI='),(108,'2011-01-02 00:53:08','Uploaded patch set 7.',2155,'AAAL2X///wM='),(46,'2010-12-20 15:16:09','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nOops, this was uploaded in error. The right one is http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,2139',2156,'AAAL13///1U='),(4,'2010-12-20 15:14:05','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2156,'AAAL13///1Y='),(44,'2010-12-20 10:34:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2157,'AAAL13///24='),(4,'2010-12-20 23:24:14','Uploaded patch set 3.',2157,'AAAL2H////A='),(4,'2010-12-20 23:23:45','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2157,'AAAL2H////E='),(4,'2010-12-20 23:25:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2157,'AAAL2H///+4='),(4,'2010-12-20 23:25:04','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- added TODO tag',2157,'AAAL2H///+8='),(1,'2010-12-20 16:25:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2158,'AAAL13///zg='),(1,'2010-12-20 16:25:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2158,'AAAL13///zo='),(4,'2010-12-20 16:25:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2159,'AAAL13///zk='),(4,'2010-12-20 16:23:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2159,'AAAL13///zw='),(44,'2010-12-20 16:21:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',2160,'AAAL13///z0='),(4,'2010-12-20 16:21:17','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nhyperlinks to egit documentation are broken',2160,'AAAL13///z4='),(4,'2010-12-20 23:08:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2160,'AAAL2H////I='),(4,'2010-12-20 23:08:52','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2160,'AAAL2H////M='),(4,'2010-12-22 00:02:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2161,'AAAL2H///8A='),(1,'2010-12-29 19:29:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2161,'AAAL2X///8Q='),(1,'2010-12-29 19:29:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',2161,'AAAL2X///8U='),(4,'2010-12-21 16:06:06','Uploaded patch set 3.',2162,'AAAL2H///80='),(4,'2010-12-21 15:58:49','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2162,'AAAL2H///88='),(4,'2010-12-21 16:08:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2162,'AAAL2H///8s='),(4,'2010-12-21 16:07:59','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n-rebased\n- improved error message',2162,'AAAL2H///8w='),(44,'2010-12-21 12:33:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',2162,'AAAL2H///9M='),(46,'2010-12-22 16:03:40','Patch Set 2:\n\nAdded a button to start an \"Advanced\" RefSpec dialog as known from the normal wizard\'s RefSpecPage.',2163,'AAAL2H///7I='),(46,'2010-12-22 16:02:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',2163,'AAAL2H///7M='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:17:32','Patch Set 6:\n\nStreamlined the UI by adding an \"Advanced\" toggle and started with a Wizard to create a simple Fetch RefSpec.',2163,'AAAL2n///+I='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:15:55','Uploaded patch set 6.',2163,'AAAL2n///+Q='),(46,'2011-01-14 13:36:46','Uploaded patch set 7.',2163,'AAAL2n///60='),(46,'2011-01-14 13:38:35','Patch Set 7:\n\nUse content assist everywhwere to help filling the source and destination when editing RefSpec; better description in the RefSpec change dialog and specific labels for source and destination depending on whether a push or fetch RefSpec is edited.',2163,'AAAL2n///6o='),(46,'2011-01-24 16:08:11','Uploaded patch set 8.',2163,'AAAL2n///ZM='),(46,'2011-02-01 08:27:37','Patch Set 9:\n\n>When configuring destination ref for Fetch, the auto-proposed Ref doesn\'t contain the remote name mentioned in the first page of the configuration wizard. This says for my example: \"Fetch configuration for remote \"origin\"\" but the auto-proposed destination Ref for the source Ref \"refs/heads/*\" is \"refs/remotes/*\" instead of the expected \"refs/remotes/origin/*\"\n\nFixed.\n\n>Didn\'t find a way how to configure Push refspec for \"Push to upstream\" if no push refspec is defined at all but only fetch refspec.\n\nNot sure what the problem is. The table control is disabled and says something like \"Pushing to all branches\", but you can still press the \"Add\" button to override this.\n\n\n>Result dialogs only pop up for a very short time and then disappear automatically (on Mac OS X 10.6.6). This way the result dialogs are useless.\n\nNeed to debug this on a Mac\n\n>Trying to \"cancel\" a running fetch or push operation takes a long time until it\'s cancelled.\n\nLooks like a shortcoming of the Transport implementation\n\n>some UI tests are failing:\n\nFixed',2163,'AAAL2n//+3M='),(46,'2011-02-01 08:24:05','Patch Set 8: (7 inline comments)\n\n',2163,'AAAL2n//+3Q='),(46,'2011-02-01 08:23:19','Uploaded patch set 9.',2163,'AAAL2n//+3Y='),(4,'2011-01-31 22:23:06','Patch Set 8: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(7 inline comments)\n\nWhen configuring destination ref for Fetch, the auto-proposed Ref doesn\'t contain the remote name mentioned in the first page of the configuration wizard. This says for my example: \"Fetch configuration for remote \"origin\"\" but the auto-proposed destination Ref for the source Ref \"refs/heads/*\" is \"refs/remotes/*\" instead of the expected \"refs/remotes/origin/*\"\n\nDidn\'t find a way how to configure Push refspec for \"Push to upstream\" if no push refspec is defined at all but only fetch refspec.\n\nResult dialogs only pop up for a very short time and then disappear automatically (on Mac OS X 10.6.6). This way the result dialogs are useless.\n\nTrying to \"cancel\" a running fetch or push operation takes a long time until it\'s cancelled.\n\n\nsome UI tests are failing:\n\norg.eclipse.egit.ui--All tests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.AllTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.AllLocalTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.AllTeamActionTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.PushActionTest\ntestPushToBothDestination(org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.PushActionTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find menu: [Team, Push...]\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper.clickContextMenu(ContextMenuHelper.java:66)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.PushActionTest.openPushDialog(PushActionTest.java:131)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.PushActionTest.pushTo(PushActionTest.java:84)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.PushActionTest.testPushToBothDestination(PushActionTest.java:66)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)\n\ntestPushToPushDestination(org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.PushActionTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find menu: [Team, Push...]\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper.clickContextMenu(ContextMenuHelper.java:66)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.PushActionTest.openPushDialog(PushActionTest.java:131)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.PushActionTest.pushTo(PushActionTest.java:84)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.PushActionTest.testPushToPushDestination(PushActionTest.java:72)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)\n\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.FetchAndMergeActionTest\ntestFetchFromOriginThenMerge(org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.FetchAndMergeActionTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find menu: [Team, Fetch From...]\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper.clickContextMenu(ContextMenuHelper.java:66)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.FetchAndMergeActionTest.openFetchDialog(FetchAndMergeActionTest.java:132)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.FetchAndMergeActionTest.testFetchFromOriginThenMerge(FetchAndMergeActionTest.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 org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)',2163,'AAAL2n//+5s='),(2,'2011-02-03 15:13:04','Patch Set 11: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2163,'AAAL2n//+t0='),(2,'2011-02-03 15:13:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2163,'AAAL2n//+tw='),(46,'2011-02-03 14:21:28','Uploaded patch set 11.',2163,'AAAL2n//+ug='),(46,'2011-02-02 10:17:53','Uploaded patch set 10.',2163,'AAAL2n//+yE='),(46,'2010-12-29 15:46:47','Uploaded patch set 4.',2163,'AAAL2X///+I='),(46,'2010-12-29 15:17:34','Uploaded patch set 3.',2163,'AAAL2X///+Q='),(46,'2011-01-10 15:44:51','Patch Set 5:\n\nRebased to current master',2163,'AAAL2X///hE='),(46,'2011-01-10 15:43:48','Uploaded patch set 5.',2163,'AAAL2X///hQ='),(4,'2010-12-21 15:48:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2164,'AAAL2H///9E='),(4,'2010-12-21 15:48:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2164,'AAAL2H///9I='),(44,'2010-12-22 16:53:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',2165,'AAAL2H///6Q='),(46,'2010-12-30 09:14:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2165,'AAAL2X///3s='),(46,'2010-12-30 09:14:55','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2165,'AAAL2X///3w='),(1,'2010-12-22 19:36:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2166,'AAAL2H///6I='),(1,'2010-12-22 19:36:34','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2166,'AAAL2H///6M='),(4,'2010-12-23 00:05:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2167,'AAAL2H///5o='),(4,'2010-12-23 00:05:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2167,'AAAL2H///5s='),(51,'2010-12-24 00:39:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',2168,'AAAL2H///28='),(4,'2010-12-23 00:12:37','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2168,'AAAL2H///5k='),(1,'2010-12-24 02:46:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2168,'AAAL2X////4='),(1,'2010-12-24 02:46:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',2168,'AAAL2X////8='),(4,'2010-12-22 23:13:39','Uploaded patch set 3.',2169,'AAAL2H///54='),(4,'2010-12-22 23:12:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',2169,'AAAL2H///6A='),(4,'2011-03-22 23:37:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2169,'AAAL3n//+00='),(4,'2011-03-22 23:37:57','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2169,'AAAL3n//+04='),(107,'2011-03-22 23:32:51','Patch Set 4:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/egit.gerrit/106/ ',2169,'AAAL3n//+08='),(107,'2011-03-22 23:43:17','Patch Set 4:\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/egit.gerrit/106/ : SUCCESS',2169,'AAAL3n//+0w='),(4,'2011-03-22 23:32:48','Uploaded patch set 4.',2169,'AAAL3n//+1A='),(NULL,'2011-03-22 22:48:46','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.',2169,'AAAL3n//+1Q='),(4,'2011-03-22 22:48:45','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nsimple fix to enable running the build against Indigo',2169,'AAAL3n//+1U='),(4,'2010-12-22 23:13:38','Uploaded patch set 3.',2170,'AAAL2H///58='),(4,'2010-12-22 23:12:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',2170,'AAAL2H///6E='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:09:53','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nthis was already fixed in another change',2170,'AAAL2n///OI='),(46,'2011-01-26 09:55:08','Patch Set 3: Do not submit\n\nThis should be abandoned. Change\n\nI874fc385dca9559f892e850d2a95e67bf51c5ccf\n\nhas brought the same modifications.',2170,'AAAL2n///P0='),(1,'2010-12-22 23:49:22','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2171,'AAAL2H///5w='),(107,'2010-12-27 01:44:19','Patch Set 1:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/14/ ',2171,'AAAL2X////k='),(4,'2011-02-28 16:33:09','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nneed to look into that again, Jetty promised to roll back their incompatible change',2171,'AAAL3H///40='),(107,'2011-02-28 15:56:47','Patch Set 1: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nSUCCESS: https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/16/',2171,'AAAL3H///44='),(107,'2011-02-28 15:54:53','Patch Set 1:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/16/ ',2171,'AAAL3H///48='),(4,'2011-03-01 01:06:03','Uploaded patch set 2.',2171,'AAAL3H///4c='),(4,'2011-03-01 01:07:18','Patch Set 2:\n\nJetty 7.3 can be installed from http://download.eclipse.org/jetty/updates/jetty-bundles-7.x/',2171,'AAAL3H///4Y='),(5,'2011-03-04 08:32:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2171,'AAAL3H///sU='),(107,'2011-03-03 21:34:35','Patch Set 2: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nSUCCESS: https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/21/',2171,'AAAL3H///u4='),(107,'2011-03-03 21:32:21','Patch Set 2:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/21/ ',2171,'AAAL3H///u8='),(5,'2011-03-03 21:20:04','Patch Set 2:\n\nseems to be a very safe modification',2171,'AAAL3H///vA='),(5,'2011-03-03 21:19:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nseems to be a very safe modification',2171,'AAAL3H///vE='),(1,'2010-12-31 00:49:13','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\nYea, immutable objects work well... usually.  Here DeltaVisit is almost immutable, but its not where we implement tail recursion, and the list of children that need to be processed, because those are faster to be mutable.  The Java GC is good, but its not *that* good.',2172,'AAAL2X///0A='),(102,'2010-12-30 23:10:54','Uploaded patch set 4.',2172,'AAAL2X///0c='),(102,'2010-12-30 23:40:59','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nThis is a fairly minor tidy-up over Patch Set 3 - the nextVisit() method sits better on the DeltaVisit class if you ask me.\n\nThe code looks good to me, tho I just wanted to say that personally I prefer lobbing around immutable strongly-typed objects - I find the code easier to follow. I can see that mutability is sometimes necessary  but I wouldn\'t like to think it was being used prematurely... my 2 cents :-)',2172,'AAAL2X///0Q='),(102,'2010-12-30 09:39:22','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\nThanks Shawn - I\'d like to do a perf-test on the updated code, will do that and a code review in a few hours.',2172,'AAAL2X///3k='),(1,'2010-12-30 04:18:54','Patch Set 3:\n\nOK, I think patch set 3 is way better.  I\'d appreciate a review Roberto.',2172,'AAAL2X///4U='),(1,'2010-12-30 04:18:36','Uploaded patch set 3.',2172,'AAAL2X///4Y='),(1,'2010-12-29 22:49:47','Patch Set 2:\n\nPatch set 2 I think does the same thing, but is a bit smaller of a change, and uses less memory.',2172,'AAAL2X///50='),(1,'2010-12-29 22:46:03','Uploaded patch set 2.',2172,'AAAL2X///54='),(1,'2010-12-30 00:30:14','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI think I have a still better way to write this, patch set 3 coming soon.',2172,'AAAL2X///5o='),(1,'2010-12-29 20:35:51','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(9 inline comments)\n\nI love the idea, but I think we can do even better.  See the inline comments.',2172,'AAAL2X///7k='),(1,'2010-12-31 00:52:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2172,'AAAL2X///z0='),(1,'2010-12-31 00:52:47','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2172,'AAAL2X///z4='),(1,'2010-12-31 00:49:43','Uploaded patch set 5.',2172,'AAAL2X///z8='),(1,'2010-12-31 02:40:23','Patch Set 5: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2172,'AAAL2X///zE='),(102,'2010-12-31 00:55:40','Patch Set 5: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2172,'AAAL2X///zo='),(1,'2010-12-29 19:06:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2173,'AAAL2X///94='),(1,'2010-12-29 19:06:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2173,'AAAL2X///98='),(1,'2010-12-29 18:33:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nFix looks good, but I don\'t like the test using the system temp directory.',2174,'AAAL2X///+A='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:31:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2174,'AAAL2X///2A='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:31:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2174,'AAAL2X///2E='),(8,'2010-12-30 00:16:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',2174,'AAAL2X///5s='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:56:35','Uploaded patch set 3.',2175,'AAAL2X///1c='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:57:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2175,'AAAL2X///1I='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:35:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2175,'AAAL2X///1k='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:57:29','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nCherry-picked and corrected minor style issue.',2175,'AAAL2X///1Q='),(8,'2010-12-30 13:35:20','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2175,'AAAL2X///2g='),(8,'2010-12-30 13:34:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',2175,'AAAL2X///2w='),(1,'2010-12-29 19:10:06','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2175,'AAAL2X///9s='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:57:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2176,'AAAL2X///1M='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:57:14','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nCherry-picked and corrected style issues that Robin thought he fixed but didn\'t actually change in patch set 2.',2176,'AAAL2X///1U='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:56:36','Uploaded patch set 3.',2176,'AAAL2X///1Y='),(8,'2010-12-30 13:35:06','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2176,'AAAL2X///2k='),(8,'2010-12-30 13:34:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',2176,'AAAL2X///2s='),(1,'2010-12-29 19:13:09','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2176,'AAAL2X///9g='),(8,'2010-12-28 19:14:53','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis patch breaks the JGit API so I60129096a58a74e4c21ee30f04d17c8cd650bded is needed to make EGit work again',2177,'AAAL2X///+s='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:59:05','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI\'m happy with patch set 3.  Robin, can you ack since its still authored by you?',2177,'AAAL2X///1A='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:56:35','Uploaded patch set 3.',2177,'AAAL2X///1g='),(8,'2010-12-30 13:34:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',2177,'AAAL2X///20='),(8,'2010-12-30 13:34:54','Patch Set 1: (13 inline comments)\n\n',2177,'AAAL2X///2o='),(1,'2010-12-29 19:28:01','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(16 inline comments)\n\n',2177,'AAAL2X///8Y='),(8,'2010-12-31 10:49:54','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2177,'AAAL2X///y4='),(8,'2010-12-31 10:48:50','Uploaded patch set 4.',2177,'AAAL2X///y8='),(1,'2010-12-31 21:13:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2177,'AAAL2X///yU='),(1,'2010-12-31 21:13:32','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful\n\n',2177,'AAAL2X///yY='),(8,'2010-12-31 10:47:32','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful\n\n',2177,'AAAL2X///zA='),(8,'2010-12-28 19:13:38','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis patch depends on Change-Id: I1bbee9fb123a81714a34a9cc242b92beacfbb4a8',2178,'AAAL2X///+w='),(4,'2011-01-09 21:24:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2178,'AAAL2X///lc='),(4,'2011-01-09 21:24:57','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- fixed typo in resource key',2178,'AAAL2X///lg='),(4,'2011-01-09 21:23:11','Uploaded patch set 3.',2178,'AAAL2X///lk='),(8,'2011-01-09 17:01:42','Patch Set 2:\n\nAnyone care to look at this one, so the EGit builds may continue to work?',2178,'AAAL2X///lo='),(8,'2011-01-01 20:40:20','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased.\nThe read-only information is added in the commit after this one.',2178,'AAAL2X///wg='),(8,'2011-01-01 20:38:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',2178,'AAAL2X///wk='),(8,'2011-01-01 20:28:13','Patch Set 1:\n\nOne would think that /etc/gitconfig would be the system wide configuration file. I did that for a while, but found out it wasn\'t, which is also documented in the man page for git-config.\n\nThat you cannot save to a non-writeable file is not something I can do anything about, but the user does get an error message. I can annotate the location and insert a read-only warning',2178,'AAAL2X///ws='),(4,'2010-12-31 14:06:30','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nlooks good, but on my Mac I can\'t write the system wide configuration (the file didn\'t exist so far), egit tries to write it to /usr/local/git/etc/gitconfig as I compiled c-git locally. Shouldn\'t the system wide config end up in /etc/gitconfig ?\n\nThe mkdirs() in the first line of LockFile.lock fails silently (return value isn\'t checked) as this would require sudo-ing to gain root privileges. The createNewFile() on the next line then fails with an IOException :\n\njava.io.IOException: No such file or directory\n	at java.io.UnixFileSystem.createFileExclusively(Native Method)\n	at java.io.File.createNewFile(File.java:883)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.storage.file.LockFile.lock(LockFile.java:126)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.storage.file.FileBasedConfig.save(FileBasedConfig.java:174)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.preferences.ConfigurationEditorComponent.save(ConfigurationEditorComponent.java:130)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.preferences.GlobalConfigurationPreferencePage.performOk(GlobalConfigurationPreferencePage.java:120)\n...\n\nIf I create /usr/local/git/etc/gitconfig manually I still can\'t save system wide configuration from egit as it doesn\'t know how to sudo :\n\njava.io.IOException: Permission denied\n	at java.io.UnixFileSystem.createFileExclusively(Native Method)\n	at java.io.File.createNewFile(File.java:883)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.storage.file.LockFile.lock(LockFile.java:126)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.storage.file.FileBasedConfig.save(FileBasedConfig.java:174)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.preferences.ConfigurationEditorComponent.save(ConfigurationEditorComponent.java:130)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.preferences.GlobalConfigurationPreferencePage.performOk(GlobalConfigurationPreferencePage.java:120)\n	at org.eclipse.jface.preference.PreferencePage.performApply(PreferencePage.java:432)\n...',2178,'AAAL2X///y0='),(4,'2011-01-09 21:47:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2179,'AAAL2X///lQ='),(4,'2011-01-09 21:47:36','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',2179,'AAAL2X///lU='),(4,'2011-01-09 21:45:57','Uploaded patch set 5.',2179,'AAAL2X///lY='),(8,'2011-01-01 23:22:09','Uploaded patch set 3.',2179,'AAAL2X///wc='),(8,'2011-01-01 20:38:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',2179,'AAAL2X///wo='),(8,'2011-01-02 00:17:24','Uploaded patch set 4.',2179,'AAAL2X///wY='),(46,'2010-12-29 15:24:20','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThe abbreviate() call does not append \"...\". I believe we should have them to make it clear that we have some abbreviation here.',2180,'AAAL2X///+M='),(46,'2010-12-30 08:39:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2180,'AAAL2X///38='),(46,'2010-12-30 08:39:13','Patch Set 2: Build Successful\n\nI like that.',2180,'AAAL2X///4A='),(46,'2010-12-30 08:38:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nI like that.',2180,'AAAL2X///4E='),(4,'2010-12-29 23:28:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2180,'AAAL2X///5w='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:15:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',2181,'AAAL2n///+M='),(46,'2011-01-14 13:36:46','Uploaded patch set 4.',2181,'AAAL2n///6w='),(46,'2011-01-24 16:08:11','Uploaded patch set 5.',2181,'AAAL2n///ZI='),(2,'2011-02-01 19:53:10','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCan you rebase this and the other related change?\n\nI\'d like to see this make it in 0.11',2181,'AAAL2n//+0U='),(46,'2011-02-01 08:23:20','Uploaded patch set 6.',2181,'AAAL2n//+3U='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:24:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2181,'AAAL2n//+xQ='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:24:32','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2181,'AAAL2n//+xU='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:24:20','Uploaded patch set 8.',2181,'AAAL2n//+xY='),(46,'2011-02-02 10:17:54','Uploaded patch set 7.',2181,'AAAL2n//+yA='),(46,'2011-01-10 15:44:31','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased to current master',2181,'AAAL2X///hI='),(46,'2011-01-10 15:43:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',2181,'AAAL2X///hM='),(4,'2010-12-31 01:05:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2182,'AAAL2X///zc='),(4,'2010-12-31 01:05:06','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2182,'AAAL2X///zg='),(4,'2010-12-31 01:04:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',2182,'AAAL2X///zk='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:27:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2183,'AAAL2X///2I='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:27:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2183,'AAAL2X///2M='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:31:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2184,'AAAL2X///14='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:31:40','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2184,'AAAL2X///18='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:32:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2185,'AAAL2X///10='),(1,'2010-12-30 20:32:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2185,'AAAL2X///1w='),(8,'2010-12-30 00:37:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',2185,'AAAL2X///5k='),(46,'2010-12-30 13:31:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2186,'AAAL2X///24='),(46,'2010-12-30 13:31:40','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2186,'AAAL2X///28='),(46,'2010-12-30 09:06:08','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nCool. Just a minor issue with conflicting keyboard shortcuts.',2186,'AAAL2X///30='),(4,'2010-12-30 13:30:55','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2186,'AAAL2X///3A='),(4,'2010-12-30 13:29:45','Uploaded patch set 3.',2186,'AAAL2X///3I='),(4,'2010-12-30 01:02:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',2186,'AAAL2X///5g='),(46,'2010-12-30 12:11:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2187,'AAAL2X///3M='),(46,'2010-12-30 12:11:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThanks Robin.',2187,'AAAL2X///3Q='),(8,'2010-12-30 12:03:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',2187,'AAAL2X///3Y='),(46,'2010-12-30 08:30:18','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nThanks for the fix. However, the bug number should be added (and the bug updated accordingly).',2187,'AAAL2X///4M='),(8,'2010-12-30 12:02:35','Patch Set 1:\n\nWell, I *think* this may be a problem. The body of the message is the explanation.\n\nIt is not clear to me if we may work with a Document from\nany thread in Eclipse. Perhaps a Docuement is far enough away from the UI. Let someone with insights into this comment.',2188,'AAAL2X///3c='),(8,'2010-12-30 12:05:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',2188,'AAAL2X///3U='),(46,'2010-12-30 08:36:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nI\'m afraid I don\'t quite understand the problem here... Could you please elaborate some (perhaps even as a comment line in the code)?',2188,'AAAL2X///4I='),(46,'2010-12-30 09:47:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',2189,'AAAL2X///3g='),(4,'2010-12-31 01:25:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2189,'AAAL2X///zQ='),(4,'2010-12-31 01:25:00','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2189,'AAAL2X///zU='),(4,'2010-12-31 01:23:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',2189,'AAAL2X///zY='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:45:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2190,'AAAL2n///qg='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:45:50','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2190,'AAAL2n///qk='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:45:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',2190,'AAAL2n///qo='),(46,'2011-01-21 15:38:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',2191,'AAAL2n///gc='),(4,'2011-01-21 16:41:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2191,'AAAL2n///gE='),(4,'2011-01-21 16:41:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2191,'AAAL2n///gI='),(2,'2011-01-18 12:32:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2192,'AAAL2n///uc='),(2,'2011-01-18 12:31:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',2192,'AAAL2n///ug='),(2,'2011-01-18 12:32:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2192,'AAAL2n///uY='),(2,'2011-01-18 12:28:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2193,'AAAL2n///uk='),(2,'2011-01-18 12:28:29','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2193,'AAAL2n///uo='),(2,'2011-01-18 12:27:52','Uploaded patch set 2.',2193,'AAAL2n///us='),(2,'2011-01-18 10:33:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2194,'AAAL2n///u4='),(2,'2011-01-18 10:33:01','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2194,'AAAL2n///u8='),(2,'2011-01-18 10:32:15','Uploaded patch set 3.',2194,'AAAL2n///vA='),(2,'2011-01-18 10:17:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',2194,'AAAL2n///vE='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:08:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2195,'AAAL2X///xE='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:08:23','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2195,'AAAL2X///xI='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:00:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2196,'AAAL2X///xk='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:00:18','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2196,'AAAL2X///xo='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:00:11','Uploaded patch set 3.',2196,'AAAL2X///xs='),(1,'2010-12-31 21:59:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',2196,'AAAL2X///xw='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:04:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2197,'AAAL2X///xc='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:04:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',2197,'AAAL2X///xg='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:04:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2197,'AAAL2X///xY='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:07:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2198,'AAAL2X///xM='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:07:55','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2198,'AAAL2X///xQ='),(1,'2010-12-31 22:07:48','Uploaded patch set 2.',2198,'AAAL2X///xU='),(5,'2011-01-16 22:29:14','Patch Set 2:\n\nNo Robin, this change isn\'t the same as I2b2170c2. It\'s more like I2b2170c2 depends on this one. The change here introduces methods to compare a workingtree- and index-entry purely by metadata and the change I2b2170c2 makes use of this methods to reuse a SHA-1 if possible.',2199,'AAAL2n///2g='),(8,'2011-01-16 16:53:54','Patch Set 2:\n\nThis is same as I2b2170c29017993d8cb7a1d3c8cd94fb16c7dd02 , right?',2199,'AAAL2n///3E='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:23:39','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2199,'AAAL2n///hc='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:23:21','Uploaded patch set 4.',2199,'AAAL2n///hg='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:22:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',2199,'AAAL2n///hk='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:23:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2199,'AAAL2n///hY='),(5,'2011-01-21 00:11:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2199,'AAAL2n///kw='),(8,'2011-01-20 20:29:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2199,'AAAL2n///lI='),(5,'2011-01-10 15:46:09','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2199,'AAAL2X///gw='),(5,'2011-01-10 15:44:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',2199,'AAAL2X///hA='),(1,'2011-01-10 01:25:32','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',2199,'AAAL2X///jI='),(5,'2010-12-31 15:35:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2199,'AAAL2X///yg='),(8,'2011-01-01 18:11:29','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nnow works with a Eclipse 3.5 RCP and Jetty (for the Http tests) and nothing else.',2200,'AAAL2X///w0='),(8,'2011-01-01 18:08:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',2200,'AAAL2X///w4='),(8,'2011-01-01 17:42:21','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI get a NoClassDefFoundError here. Strange since the hamcrest bundle seems to export packeges',2200,'AAAL2X///w8='),(1,'2011-01-02 00:48:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2200,'AAAL2X///wQ='),(1,'2011-01-02 00:48:07','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',2200,'AAAL2X///wU='),(8,'2011-01-01 14:18:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',2200,'AAAL2X///xA='),(1,'2011-01-02 22:21:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2201,'AAAL2X///v4='),(1,'2011-01-02 22:21:57','Patch Set 1: Build Successful\n\n',2201,'AAAL2X///v8='),(1,'2011-01-02 22:15:52','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2201,'AAAL2X///wA='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:40:16','Uploaded patch set 5.',2202,'AAAL2X///kc='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:35:42','Uploaded patch set 4.',2202,'AAAL2X///kg='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:35:10','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2202,'AAAL2X///kk='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:41:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2202,'AAAL2X///kU='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:41:51','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed misleading variable name',2202,'AAAL2X///kY='),(8,'2011-01-08 01:14:22','Patch Set 3:\n\nfixed a typo',2202,'AAAL2X///oE='),(8,'2011-01-08 00:59:13','Uploaded patch set 3.',2202,'AAAL2X///oI='),(8,'2011-01-04 08:03:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',2202,'AAAL2X///uM='),(8,'2011-01-03 05:27:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2203,'AAAL2X///vs='),(8,'2011-01-03 05:27:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2203,'AAAL2X///vw='),(8,'2011-01-03 05:32:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2204,'AAAL2X///vk='),(8,'2011-01-03 05:32:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2204,'AAAL2X///vo='),(1,'2011-01-10 00:20:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2205,'AAAL2X///jc='),(1,'2011-01-10 00:20:13','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2205,'AAAL2X///jg='),(1,'2011-01-06 17:28:35','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2205,'AAAL2X///p8='),(1,'2011-01-06 17:41:00','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',2205,'AAAL2X///pk='),(102,'2011-01-06 17:54:15','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nCool - thanks for the additional comments',2205,'AAAL2X///pM='),(1,'2011-01-06 17:48:55','Uploaded patch set 6.',2205,'AAAL2X///pQ='),(1,'2011-01-06 17:48:33','Patch Set 4: (3 inline comments)\n\nI\'m about to upload ps 6, which is ps 4 with Robin\'s comments addressed.',2205,'AAAL2X///pU='),(102,'2011-01-05 23:43:51','Uploaded patch set 5.',2205,'AAAL2X///qc='),(102,'2011-01-05 23:39:37','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2205,'AAAL2X///qg='),(8,'2011-01-06 06:40:43','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2205,'AAAL2X///qI='),(8,'2011-01-05 23:00:13','Patch Set 4: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2205,'AAAL2X///qo='),(102,'2011-01-05 23:50:27','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2205,'AAAL2X///qQ='),(1,'2011-01-03 00:55:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',2205,'AAAL2X///v0='),(1,'2011-01-03 09:02:36','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nI think I\'m happy with patch set 3.  The object allocation count is the same as before, but we should be faster if your testing on IndexPack works out the same on PackFile, and we can load deep chains without overflowing the thread stack.',2205,'AAAL2X///vc='),(1,'2011-01-03 10:38:42','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\nHmmph, maybe patch set 4 is final.  :-)',2205,'AAAL2X///vE='),(1,'2011-01-03 09:01:04','Uploaded patch set 3.',2205,'AAAL2X///vg='),(1,'2011-01-03 10:21:56','Uploaded patch set 4.',2205,'AAAL2X///vY='),(108,'2011-01-05 16:06:01','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nwrong push',2206,'AAAL2X///rs='),(1,'2011-01-05 18:42:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2207,'AAAL2X///rU='),(1,'2011-01-05 18:42:31','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2207,'AAAL2X///rY='),(9,'2011-01-05 06:44:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',2207,'AAAL2X///sc='),(9,'2011-01-05 07:31:31','Uploaded patch set 3.',2207,'AAAL2X///sE='),(9,'2011-01-05 06:47:00','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2207,'AAAL2X///sQ='),(9,'2011-01-05 06:46:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nMinor update. Made the Note.getData() method public',2207,'AAAL2X///sU='),(1,'2011-01-04 18:58:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nTwo minor nits, but we can address them later.',2207,'AAAL2X///tY='),(8,'2011-01-15 23:40:45','Uploaded patch set 7.',2208,'AAAL2n///3M='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:13:51','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2208,'AAAL2n///sg='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:14:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2208,'AAAL2n///sM='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:09:42','Uploaded patch set 8.',2208,'AAAL2n///ss='),(8,'2011-01-08 08:25:19','Uploaded patch set 6.',2208,'AAAL2X///n4='),(8,'2011-01-07 10:20:52','Patch Set 2: Do not submit\n\nI\'ll push a better version of this one that takes care of ambiguous ref selections.\n\nThe reference to a failed build was a local address. Egit builds currently fail because I broke the JGit API, but only the JGit part was merged and not the one needed to fix EGit http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,2178',2208,'AAAL2X///o0='),(8,'2011-01-07 14:57:00','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n/Users/me/LocalRepositoriesTests/FirstRepository/.git',2208,'AAAL2X///oc='),(8,'2011-01-07 14:56:31','Uploaded patch set 5.',2208,'AAAL2X///og='),(8,'2011-01-07 13:12:27','Uploaded patch set 4.',2208,'AAAL2X///oo='),(8,'2011-01-07 12:28:30','Uploaded patch set 3.',2208,'AAAL2X///os='),(8,'2011-01-04 20:46:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',2208,'AAAL2X///s4='),(11,'2011-01-04 21:23:59','Patch Set 1:\n\nBuild failed http://192.168.1.200:8080/job/egit%20gerrit/24/',2208,'AAAL2X///sk='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:08:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',2209,'AAAL2X///k4='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:08:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2209,'AAAL2X///ks='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:05:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',2209,'AAAL2X///lM='),(108,'2011-01-05 16:05:26','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWrong push',2210,'AAAL2X///rw='),(2,'2011-01-19 13:30:03','Patch Set 2:\n\nI would love to get things from maven central.\n\nIf jsch just put the latest release in maven central, that will make our life easier.',2211,'AAAL2n///p0='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:31:06','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nJSCh 0.1.44 is now approved in Orbit so we can use it.',2211,'AAAL2n///q0='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:30:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',2211,'AAAL2n///q4='),(15,'2011-01-19 13:11:19','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2211,'AAAL2n///qA='),(2,'2011-01-05 20:54:44','Patch Set 1:\n\nSigh. I started the CQ process for 0.1.44 anyway as this will be needed for the Eclipse platform before 3.7 is out the door.\n\nhttps://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4728',2211,'AAAL2X///q8='),(2,'2011-01-05 20:54:36','Patch Set 1: Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nSigh. I started the CQ process for 0.1.44 anyway as this will be needed for the Eclipse platform before 3.7 is out the door.\n\nhttps://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4728',2211,'AAAL2X///rA='),(1,'2011-01-05 20:18:39','Patch Set 1: Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nThis is a huge can of worms for JGit to upgrade to .44.  In the meantime I would bump Gerrit Code Review itself to .44, it excludes the JGit JSch dependency inside of its pom specifically to allow it to use a newer version.',2211,'AAAL2X///rI='),(107,'2011-03-31 14:44:09','Patch Set 4:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/208/ ',2211,'AAAL33///d0='),(2,'2011-03-31 14:44:05','Uploaded patch set 4.',2211,'AAAL33///d4='),(15,'2011-03-31 14:41:43','Patch Set 3:\n\nI think 0.1.44 is borked on central. I linked to 0.1.44-1 , which I think is the correct version.',2211,'AAAL33///d8='),(2,'2011-03-31 14:47:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2211,'AAAL33///do='),(2,'2011-03-31 14:47:45','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',2211,'AAAL33///ds='),(107,'2011-03-31 14:46:26','Patch Set 4: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/208/ : SUCCESS',2211,'AAAL33///dw='),(107,'2011-03-31 14:41:04','Patch Set 3: Build Failed\n\nBuild Failed \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/207/ : FAILURE',2211,'AAAL33///eA='),(107,'2011-03-31 14:40:48','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/207/ ',2211,'AAAL33///eE='),(2,'2011-03-31 14:40:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',2211,'AAAL33///eI='),(15,'2011-03-31 10:55:07','Patch Set 2:\n\nJsch 0.1.44 is now on central, perhaps this can be ajusted?\n\nhttp://mavencentral.sonatype.com/#artifactdetails%7Ccom.jcraft%7Cjsch%7C0.1.44-1',2211,'AAAL33///fc='),(1,'2011-01-05 20:19:32','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nActually part of I7de63cb3482488ac938566706edebee8a1cdad3a',2212,'AAAL2X///rE='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:08:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2213,'AAAL2X///k0='),(4,'2011-01-08 23:37:55','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2213,'AAAL2X///l0='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:06:44','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master',2213,'AAAL2X///lA='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:05:18','Uploaded patch set 5.',2213,'AAAL2X///lE='),(8,'2011-01-09 16:54:28','Uploaded patch set 4.',2213,'AAAL2X///ls='),(8,'2011-01-07 10:28:47','Uploaded patch set 3.',2213,'AAAL2X///ow='),(8,'2011-01-05 23:44:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',2213,'AAAL2X///qY='),(1,'2011-01-10 00:19:08','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2214,'AAAL2X///jk='),(1,'2011-01-10 00:19:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful\n\n',2214,'AAAL2X///jo='),(8,'2011-01-08 08:33:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2214,'AAAL2X///nw='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:08:04','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- fixed typo in commit message\n- fixed code formatting',2215,'AAAL2X///k8='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:08:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2215,'AAAL2X///kw='),(4,'2011-01-09 23:05:18','Uploaded patch set 4.',2215,'AAAL2X///lI='),(8,'2011-01-07 08:27:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',2215,'AAAL2X///pA='),(8,'2011-01-07 08:27:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',2215,'AAAL2X///pE='),(1,'2011-01-07 16:47:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2216,'AAAL2X///oM='),(1,'2011-01-07 16:46:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2216,'AAAL2X///oQ='),(8,'2011-01-15 23:40:45','Uploaded patch set 3.',2217,'AAAL2n///3Q='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:09:42','Uploaded patch set 4.',2217,'AAAL2n///s4='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:14:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2217,'AAAL2n///sE='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:14:41','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n-rebased\n- fixed typo in class name',2217,'AAAL2n///sY='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:09:17','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2217,'AAAL2n///tA='),(4,'2011-01-10 00:03:58','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2217,'AAAL2X///kI='),(8,'2011-01-08 08:25:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',2217,'AAAL2X///n8='),(8,'2011-01-15 23:42:27','Patch Set 2: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2218,'AAAL2n///3I='),(8,'2011-01-15 23:40:45','Uploaded patch set 3.',2218,'AAAL2n///3U='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:09:42','Uploaded patch set 4.',2218,'AAAL2n///s8='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:14:11','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2218,'AAAL2n///sc='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:14:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2218,'AAAL2n///sI='),(4,'2011-01-10 00:13:41','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',2218,'AAAL2X///j0='),(8,'2011-01-08 08:25:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',2218,'AAAL2X///oA='),(1,'2011-01-10 15:05:28','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2219,'AAAL2X///hU='),(1,'2011-01-10 15:05:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2219,'AAAL2X///hY='),(9,'2011-01-10 09:01:39','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2219,'AAAL2X///i8='),(9,'2011-01-10 09:00:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',2219,'AAAL2X///jE='),(1,'2011-01-07 16:27:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI\'m not sure its an improvement over what was there before, but I\'ll accept the change if you cleanup the threads from the pool.',2219,'AAAL2X///oU='),(8,'2011-01-22 10:33:04','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nNot needed',2220,'AAAL2n///fQ='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:13:12','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2221,'AAAL2n///sk='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:14:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2221,'AAAL2n///sQ='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:09:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',2221,'AAAL2n///sw='),(8,'2011-01-18 07:41:06','Uploaded patch set 2.',2221,'AAAL2n///vg='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:09:42','Uploaded patch set 4.',2222,'AAAL2n///s0='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:12:51','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2222,'AAAL2n///so='),(4,'2011-01-19 00:14:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2222,'AAAL2n///sU='),(8,'2011-01-18 07:41:06','Uploaded patch set 3.',2222,'AAAL2n///vk='),(8,'2011-01-08 08:32:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',2222,'AAAL2X///n0='),(4,'2011-01-10 14:00:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2223,'AAAL2X///h0='),(4,'2011-01-10 14:00:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2223,'AAAL2X///hw='),(4,'2011-01-10 15:45:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',2224,'AAAL2X///g8='),(4,'2011-01-10 15:46:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2224,'AAAL2X///go='),(4,'2011-01-10 15:46:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',2224,'AAAL2X///gs='),(NULL,'2011-01-10 14:02:34','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.',2224,'AAAL2X///hc='),(4,'2011-01-10 14:02:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2224,'AAAL2X///hk='),(4,'2011-01-10 15:45:19','Uploaded patch set 3.',2225,'AAAL2X///g4='),(4,'2011-01-10 15:47:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2225,'AAAL2X///gg='),(4,'2011-01-10 15:47:45','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',2225,'AAAL2X///gk='),(NULL,'2011-01-10 14:02:34','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.',2225,'AAAL2X///hg='),(4,'2011-01-10 14:02:20','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nfixed typos in commit message',2225,'AAAL2X///ho='),(4,'2011-01-10 14:01:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',2225,'AAAL2X///hs='),(44,'2011-01-10 12:30:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2226,'AAAL2X///iM='),(44,'2011-01-10 12:30:44','Patch Set 1: Build Successful\n\n',2226,'AAAL2X///iQ='),(44,'2011-01-10 12:30:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2226,'AAAL2X///iU='),(4,'2011-01-10 13:28:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2227,'AAAL2X///iA='),(44,'2011-01-10 12:11:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2227,'AAAL2X///ic='),(4,'2011-01-10 13:28:57','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased to current master',2227,'AAAL2X///iE='),(4,'2011-01-10 13:28:35','Uploaded patch set 4.',2227,'AAAL2X///iI='),(44,'2011-01-10 12:13:37','Uploaded patch set 3.',2227,'AAAL2X///iY='),(4,'2011-01-14 17:06:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',2228,'AAAL2n///5I='),(8,'2011-01-27 22:50:58','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2228,'AAAL2n///E8='),(4,'2011-01-28 00:11:49','Uploaded patch set 4.',2228,'AAAL2n///EE='),(4,'2011-01-26 23:39:39','Uploaded patch set 3.',2228,'AAAL2n///JE='),(NULL,'2011-01-26 23:22:15','Change could not be merged because of a missing dependency.\n\nThe following changes must also be submitted:\n\n* I41244f4b9d66176e68e2c07e2329cf08492f8619\n',2228,'AAAL2n///Jw='),(4,'2011-01-26 23:07:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',2228,'AAAL2n///KY='),(8,'2011-01-20 20:26:22','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2228,'AAAL2n///lQ='),(107,'2011-01-25 00:02:27','Patch Set 2: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nSUCCESS: https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/15/',2228,'AAAL2n///XA='),(107,'2011-01-25 00:00:11','Patch Set 2:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/jgit.gerrit/15/ ',2228,'AAAL2n///XE='),(8,'2011-01-29 22:52:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2228,'AAAL2n//+/I='),(8,'2011-01-29 22:52:12','Patch Set 4: Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2228,'AAAL2n//+/Q='),(8,'2011-01-29 22:50:53','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved\n\n',2228,'AAAL2n//+/Y='),(44,'2011-01-11 12:48:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2229,'AAAL2X///fo='),(44,'2011-01-11 12:48:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2229,'AAAL2X///fs='),(4,'2011-01-14 16:16:02','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2230,'AAAL2n///5k='),(4,'2011-01-14 16:16:01','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2230,'AAAL2n///5o='),(8,'2011-01-14 13:30:03','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2230,'AAAL2n///68='),(44,'2011-01-14 13:52:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',2230,'AAAL2n///6g='),(8,'2011-01-14 14:43:29','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2230,'AAAL2n///6M='),(44,'2011-01-14 13:53:28','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2230,'AAAL2n///6Y='),(44,'2011-01-14 13:20:19','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2230,'AAAL2n///7E='),(8,'2011-01-14 13:01:15','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2230,'AAAL2n///7Q='),(1,'2011-01-12 15:47:52','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2231,'AAAL2X///d0='),(1,'2011-01-12 15:47:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2231,'AAAL2X///dw='),(46,'2011-01-12 07:54:16','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2231,'AAAL2X///fA='),(46,'2011-01-11 14:32:41','Patch Set 1:\n\nThe EGit change needing this is \n\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,2232',2231,'AAAL2X///fg='),(46,'2011-01-12 07:52:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',2231,'AAAL2X///fM='),(4,'2011-01-11 15:15:31','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2231,'AAAL2X///fY='),(4,'2011-01-17 22:58:14','Uploaded patch set 4.',2232,'AAAL2n///v0='),(NULL,'2011-01-17 22:57:09','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.',2232,'AAAL2n///v4='),(4,'2011-01-17 22:57:08','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- improved the dialog text to better explain why git needs this configuration',2232,'AAAL2n///v8='),(4,'2011-01-17 23:00:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2232,'AAAL2n///vo='),(4,'2011-01-17 23:00:37','Patch Set 4:\n\nrebased',2232,'AAAL2n///vs='),(4,'2011-01-17 23:00:31','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2232,'AAAL2n///vw='),(4,'2011-01-17 22:47:58','Uploaded patch set 3.',2232,'AAAL2n///wM='),(46,'2011-01-12 07:54:48','Patch Set 2:\n\nForgot to disable the dialog for the UI tests...',2232,'AAAL2X///e8='),(46,'2011-01-12 07:53:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',2232,'AAAL2X///fI='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:51:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2233,'AAAL2n///88='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:50:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nRebased to current master',2233,'AAAL2n///9A='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:50:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',2233,'AAAL2n///9E='),(NULL,'2011-01-13 14:49:20','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',2233,'AAAL2n///9I='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:49:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2233,'AAAL2n///9M='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:11:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2234,'AAAL2n///yg='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:11:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2234,'AAAL2n///yk='),(46,'2011-01-12 07:58:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',2234,'AAAL2X///e4='),(46,'2011-01-12 22:33:11','Patch Set 5: No score\n\nOk, since we see the lightweight tags in the history, I guess this is ok. Will test this tomorrow (unless someone else wants to take this).',2235,'AAAL2n///+k='),(46,'2011-01-12 21:35:13','Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)\n\nOk, I see the point now (I think...). So perhaps we should simply not fill the tagMap for the time being (see comment in code).',2235,'AAAL2n///+o='),(46,'2011-01-13 09:04:19','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2235,'AAAL2n///+U='),(8,'2011-01-12 21:19:44','Patch Set 5:\n\nSimple tags already show up in the history view, so we actually have some support for them.\n\nThe problem is that the existence of a simple tags cause problems for annotated tags too, since there is an exception that aborts processing altogether.',2235,'AAAL2n///+w='),(46,'2011-01-13 09:04:18','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThanks Robin.',2235,'AAAL2n///+Y='),(46,'2011-01-12 13:08:44','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nYes, we need support for the lightweight tags eventually, but I\'m afraid if we only show them in the project label, we\'ll confuse our users. Before we show the tag in the label, we should first include them in the tag dialog (see bug 323607) and if at all possible in the history view (I\'m not aware of a bug for this one...).',2235,'AAAL2X///ec='),(8,'2011-01-12 12:42:46','Uploaded patch set 5.',2235,'AAAL2X///eg='),(8,'2011-01-12 12:42:01','Uploaded patch set 4.',2235,'AAAL2X///ek='),(8,'2011-01-12 12:39:29','Uploaded patch set 3.',2235,'AAAL2X///eo='),(8,'2011-01-12 12:36:12','Patch Set 2: IP review completed\n\nAdded bug number',2235,'AAAL2X///es='),(8,'2011-01-12 12:35:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',2235,'AAAL2X///ew='),(1,'2011-01-12 15:46:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2236,'AAAL2X///d4='),(1,'2011-01-12 15:46:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2236,'AAAL2X///d8='),(1,'2011-01-12 15:44:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2237,'AAAL2X///eM='),(1,'2011-01-12 15:44:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2237,'AAAL2X///eQ='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:41:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nRebased to current master.',2238,'AAAL2n///9c='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:40:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',2238,'AAAL2n///9g='),(NULL,'2011-01-13 14:36:03','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',2238,'AAAL2n///9k='),(NULL,'2011-01-13 14:35:48','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.',2238,'AAAL2n///9o='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:35:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2238,'AAAL2n///9s='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:41:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2238,'AAAL2n///9Y='),(8,'2011-01-12 16:03:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2238,'AAAL2X///do='),(2,'2011-01-12 15:46:05','Patch Set 1:\n\nLooks good.',2239,'AAAL2X///eA='),(2,'2011-01-12 15:46:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2239,'AAAL2X///eE='),(2,'2011-01-12 15:46:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2239,'AAAL2X///eI='),(1,'2011-01-12 15:43:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2240,'AAAL2X///eU='),(1,'2011-01-12 15:43:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2240,'AAAL2X///eY='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:42:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2241,'AAAL2n///9Q='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:42:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2241,'AAAL2n///9U='),(8,'2011-01-12 16:01:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2241,'AAAL2X///ds='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:33:48','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2242,'AAAL2n///98='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:33:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2242,'AAAL2n///9w='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:33:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2243,'AAAL2n///+A='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:33:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2243,'AAAL2n///90='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:33:11','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2244,'AAAL2n///+E='),(46,'2011-01-13 14:33:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2244,'AAAL2n///94='),(1,'2011-02-12 02:57:55','Patch Set 3:\n\nI\'m a little loathe to add a new field to DirCacheEntry given the size of it and everything.  But we might have no choice here.\n\nFWIW, if we do this readonly flag idea Jens proposes, lets do it as a bit field in an int.  There are other flags C Git winds up using within their equivalent of the DirCacheEntry that are strictly in-memory and we might find we need to do something similar.  (But lets hide it behind an isReadOnly() or assertNotReadOnly() method so we can easily test it inside of set methods.)',2245,'AAAL23///1g='),(8,'2011-01-14 17:33:06','Patch Set 1:\n\nYeah, sure an immutable dircache must be deeply immutable. We can do that.\n\nAnother is to copy on write, so those that are reading it can continue processing. It should also be possible to ask the dircache wether it is valid or not so potentially slow processes, like the decorator can figure out that it should abandon its work and restart. It is more complicated than that; sometimes an reader should modify the index (see my comments on patch 1 of I133cd170f9f91aa6e3905cdd8dee87b719159a24), however it may do so by suggesting to the next writer that a particular entry should be refreshed.  \n\nGo figure.',2245,'AAAL2n///44='),(44,'2011-01-14 16:06:13','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nHow can the shared instance be immutable? A client calls read on it and data is read from disk if memory data is outdated.\n\nI think the decoration scenario could be handled in the following way: GitLightweightDecorator cashes a DirCache instance as static member and ensures thread safety by using a private lock when using the cached DirCache instance.',2245,'AAAL2n///50='),(1,'2011-01-14 15:45:58','Patch Set 1:\n\nInteresting idea, doing a shared immutable DirCache.\n\nThat might be difficult since the API exposes the DirCacheEntry, and you can edit a DirCacheEntry\'s fields via setter methods.  An immutable DirCache would have to expose immutable DirCacheEntry instances too.  :-(\n\nI think its just easier to break the API and declare that the \"easy to get, easy to use DirCache on Repository is shared... and you are responsible for thread safety\".  But changing semantics like that might make sense to actually break the API, so applications need to at least go to each call site and consider use of the shared one, or create a new one.\n\nBut what do we call this new method?\n\n  DirCache readDirCache(DirCacheSharingType type);\n\n  enum DirCacheSharingType {\n   /** A shared instance is returned, and should not be modified. */\n    SHARED,\n\n    /** A new instance is allocated for the caller. */\n    PRIVATE\n  }\n\n  DirCache readDirCache() {\n    return readDirCache(DirCacheSharingType.PRIVATE);\n  }\n\nThat might actually work.  Then applications that really want that shared copy can update their call sites to use the new SHARED constant.\n\nA PRIVATE DirCache can be created quickly by cloning the SHARED DirCache if the SHAREd one is up-to-date.  That would allow a PRIVATE one to still be constructed without doing a lot of disk IO and parsing, so even old applications would still get some benefit.',2245,'AAAL2n///6A='),(8,'2011-01-14 13:13:14','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nAre we sure callers don\'t except a new object to be created, thereby ensuring thread safety? With this multiple threads will get the same object and strange things will happen.\n\nI think caching this way need more work. It might be reasable to have method that returns a shareable unmutable dircache object and another that create mutable, non-shared dircache objects.',2245,'AAAL2n///7M='),(1,'2011-01-13 18:03:16','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nGreat idea, we just need to update the docs too.',2245,'AAAL2n///8k='),(44,'2011-01-20 10:11:46','Patch Set 2: (5 inline comments)\n\n',2245,'AAAL2n///mI='),(44,'2011-01-20 10:10:28','Uploaded patch set 3.',2245,'AAAL2n///mM='),(4,'2011-01-19 22:14:07','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(6 inline comments)\n\n',2245,'AAAL2n///nk='),(44,'2011-01-18 17:31:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',2245,'AAAL2n///to='),(1,'2011-01-23 23:55:40','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',2245,'AAAL2n///Z4='),(44,'2011-02-02 15:59:27','Patch Set 3:\n\nIntroducing a class hierarchy similar to AnyObjectId would be a very big change.\nWhat about the following simple solution: add a member \"readonly\" to DirCache and DirCacheEntry. Write methods check the flag and throw IllegalStateExceptions.',2245,'AAAL2n//+w8='),(4,'2011-09-26 20:59:40','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nIndexDiffCache is improving decorator performance in a better way',2245,'AABOBX///QU='),(44,'2011-09-26 14:16:08','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nSince change I6142b26565835f4122527c13928a0f4cff596ec9 there is no longer a need from EGit side to cache the index in the repository.\nPhilipp, I think you can abandon this change.',2245,'AABOBX///Rw='),(4,'2011-01-14 13:36:08','Uploaded patch set 2.',2246,'AAAL2n///64='),(4,'2011-01-14 13:39:35','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2246,'AAAL2n///6k='),(4,'2011-01-14 13:38:14','Uploaded patch set 3.',2246,'AAAL2n///6s='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:48:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2246,'AAAL2n///wA='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:48:33','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good! Thanks!',2246,'AAAL2n///wE='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:48:16','Uploaded patch set 4.',2246,'AAAL2n///wI='),(4,'2011-01-14 15:59:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2247,'AAAL2n///54='),(4,'2011-01-14 15:59:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2247,'AAAL2n///58='),(5,'2011-01-14 08:34:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nGreat, one line change bringing that huge performance boost: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=325393#c6',2247,'AAAL2n///7c='),(8,'2011-01-14 08:19:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nReminds me that we should perhaps have an EclipseFS, but this makes things a little better.  See the isse for more an performance. This is micro-optimization where \"macro\"-optimization is feasible.',2247,'AAAL2n///7g='),(44,'2011-01-13 17:56:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2248,'AAAL2n///80='),(4,'2011-01-13 22:20:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2248,'AAAL2n///8M='),(4,'2011-01-13 22:20:25','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2248,'AAAL2n///8Q='),(44,'2011-01-13 17:57:15','Uploaded patch set 3.',2248,'AAAL2n///8w='),(8,'2011-01-14 07:47:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2249,'AAAL2n///7k='),(8,'2011-01-14 07:47:14','Patch Set 3: Build Successful\n\n',2249,'AAAL2n///7o='),(8,'2011-01-14 07:43:19','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2249,'AAAL2n///7s='),(4,'2011-01-13 21:50:08','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nrebase went wrong, I\'ll fix that',2249,'AAAL2n///8c='),(4,'2011-01-13 22:05:35','Uploaded patch set 3.',2249,'AAAL2n///8U='),(4,'2011-01-13 22:01:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',2249,'AAAL2n///8Y='),(46,'2011-01-14 14:21:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2250,'AAAL2n///6Q='),(46,'2011-01-14 14:20:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2250,'AAAL2n///6U='),(4,'2011-01-14 16:15:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2251,'AAAL2n///5s='),(4,'2011-01-14 16:15:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2251,'AAAL2n///5w='),(1,'2011-01-15 03:14:24','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis is RFC-ish.  It seems fine, but the real reason I want to do this is to support storage on a non-filesystem.  Until I have a PackParser implementation that does that, I\'m not convinced we should submit this refactoring.',2252,'AAAL2n///3s='),(1,'2011-01-15 03:14:23','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis is RFC-ish.  It seems fine, but the real reason I want to do this is to support storage on a non-filesystem.  Until I have a PackParser implementation that does that, I\'m not convinced we should submit this refactoring.',2252,'AAAL2n///3w='),(1,'2011-01-21 00:43:02','Uploaded patch set 2.',2252,'AAAL2n///kQ='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:47:29','Uploaded patch set 3.',2252,'AAAL2n///T0='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:48:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2252,'AAAL2n///Ts='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:48:02','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2252,'AAAL2n///Tw='),(4,'2011-01-16 21:05:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',2253,'AAAL2n///24='),(4,'2011-01-16 21:09:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2253,'AAAL2n///2k='),(4,'2011-01-16 21:09:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n-fixed syntax of dependency version specifications',2253,'AAAL2n///2o='),(4,'2011-01-16 21:08:14','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2253,'AAAL2n///2s='),(4,'2011-01-16 22:51:31','Patch Set 1:\n\nI tried this using linux kernel repository on Windows 7. It looks like there is no speedup, it always takes around half a second, I tried with granularity 1,10,100',2254,'AAAL2n///2c='),(8,'2011-01-19 13:43:42','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nI can not repeat my problem. The problem was repeatable until I tested this change, but not anymore. \n\nMy repo had ~150k files, but this works quite well now, even\nwithout this patch.',2254,'AAAL2n///pw='),(49,'2011-01-18 17:45:35','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nThis draft change isn\'t work well.',2255,'AAAL2n///tk='),(2,'2011-01-17 17:03:17','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCan you summarize more what you did here?\n\nAlso, we should start coming up with some performance tests for synchronize view.',2255,'AAAL2n///z0='),(2,'2011-01-17 16:50:56','Uploaded patch set 2.',2256,'AAAL2n///0E='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:44:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2256,'AAAL2n///wQ='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:44:03','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.\n\nIn the future, we need an EGitConstants for people to reference.',2256,'AAAL2n///wU='),(74,'2011-01-17 16:55:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',2257,'AAAL2n///0A='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:34:37','Uploaded patch set 6.',2257,'AAAL2n///w0='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:08:16','Uploaded patch set 5.',2257,'AAAL2n///w4='),(4,'2011-01-17 22:00:48','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n- some style nits\n- also see my comments on patchset 3',2257,'AAAL2n///w8='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:43:01','Patch Set 8: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nGood enough for us to play with tomorrow during the summit. Thanks for feedback everyone.',2257,'AAAL2n///wc='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:41:40','Uploaded patch set 8.',2257,'AAAL2n///wg='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:40:34','Uploaded patch set 7.',2257,'AAAL2n///wo='),(2,'2011-01-17 22:43:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2257,'AAAL2n///wY='),(4,'2011-01-17 21:56:26','Patch Set 3: (6 inline comments)\n\n',2257,'AAAL2n///xQ='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:54:09','Uploaded patch set 4.',2257,'AAAL2n///xU='),(8,'2011-01-17 20:51:38','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(11 inline comments)\n\nThis patch is based on abandoned patch!?',2257,'AAAL2n///y8='),(74,'2011-01-17 16:56:47','Uploaded patch set 3.',2257,'AAAL2n///z8='),(74,'2011-01-17 16:57:43','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nStill some changes missing',2258,'AAAL2n///z4='),(74,'2011-01-17 17:05:41','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nReplaced',2258,'AAAL2n///zw='),(2,'2011-01-17 16:49:05','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\ndamnit',2259,'AAAL2n///0M='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:08:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2260,'AAAL2n///yo='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:08:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nDone.',2260,'AAAL2n///ys='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:07:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',2260,'AAAL2n///yw='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:02:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2261,'AAAL2n///y0='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:02:29','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nYes, for now this is good.',2261,'AAAL2n///y4='),(1,'2011-01-17 21:22:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2262,'AAAL2n///yE='),(1,'2011-01-17 21:22:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2262,'AAAL2n///yI='),(4,'2011-01-21 00:29:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2263,'AAAL2n///kc='),(4,'2011-01-21 00:29:53','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- fixed typo in javadoc',2263,'AAAL2n///kg='),(4,'2011-01-21 00:29:02','Uploaded patch set 5.',2263,'AAAL2n///kk='),(4,'2011-01-21 00:26:12','Uploaded patch set 4.',2263,'AAAL2n///ko='),(8,'2011-01-20 20:20:15','Patch Set 3: No score\n\nIt\'s fine to submit.',2263,'AAAL2n///lc='),(4,'2011-01-20 07:45:46','Patch Set 3:\n\ndo you still have concerns blocking submission of this change ?',2263,'AAAL2n///m4='),(8,'2011-01-19 22:39:57','Uploaded patch set 3.',2263,'AAAL2n///nc='),(8,'2011-01-19 22:36:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',2263,'AAAL2n///ng='),(8,'2011-01-18 21:29:32','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\nI got to think again. I dropped all index entries and\nthis did not work so well. Btw, the repo has >100000 files.',2263,'AAAL2n///tU='),(8,'2011-01-18 07:50:27','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2263,'AAAL2n///vU='),(1,'2011-01-17 21:33:12','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nMy -1 is only over the first common on line 114.  The rest I could live with.',2263,'AAAL2n///x0='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:15:49','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nSimple fix.',2264,'AAAL2n///yc='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:17:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2264,'AAAL2n///yM='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:17:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nSimple change.',2264,'AAAL2n///yQ='),(2,'2011-01-17 21:16:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',2264,'AAAL2n///yU='),(NULL,'2011-01-17 21:15:49','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.',2264,'AAAL2n///yY='),(4,'2011-01-21 00:25:41','Uploaded patch set 3.',2265,'AAAL2n///ks='),(4,'2011-01-21 00:30:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2265,'AAAL2n///kU='),(4,'2011-01-21 00:30:31','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2265,'AAAL2n///kY='),(8,'2011-01-20 07:34:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',2265,'AAAL2n///m8='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:13:51','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2266,'AAAL2n///rI='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:13:50','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2266,'AAAL2n///rM='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:13:36','Uploaded patch set 2.',2266,'AAAL2n///rQ='),(2,'2011-01-18 09:50:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2267,'AAAL2n///vI='),(2,'2011-01-18 09:50:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nPushed!',2267,'AAAL2n///vM='),(2,'2011-01-18 09:47:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',2267,'AAAL2n///vQ='),(2,'2011-01-18 12:25:03','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nSimple fix.',2268,'AAAL2n///u0='),(2,'2011-01-18 12:25:04','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2268,'AAAL2n///uw='),(2,'2011-01-18 13:47:44','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis doesn\'t work yet. Need to find out the exact steps to get the changeset support working...',2269,'AAAL2n///uU='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:35:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2270,'AAAL2n///gg='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:35:44','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good now.',2270,'AAAL2n///gk='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:35:28','Uploaded patch set 6.',2270,'AAAL2n///go='),(103,'2011-01-20 11:32:36','Uploaded patch set 5.',2270,'AAAL2n///l4='),(4,'2011-01-19 21:57:32','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2270,'AAAL2n///oI='),(2,'2011-01-18 14:45:50','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks. Please update the commit message.\n\nWe should get tests in place in the future.',2270,'AAAL2n///t0='),(74,'2011-01-18 23:47:26','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2270,'AAAL2n///tE='),(103,'2011-01-18 15:06:03','Uploaded patch set 4.',2270,'AAAL2n///ts='),(103,'2011-01-18 14:44:01','Uploaded patch set 3.',2270,'AAAL2n///uA='),(103,'2011-01-18 14:19:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',2270,'AAAL2n///uE='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:10:11','Uploaded patch set 4.',2271,'AAAL2n///rc='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:10:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2271,'AAAL2n///rU='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:10:30','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2271,'AAAL2n///rY='),(49,'2011-01-18 14:45:43','Uploaded patch set 2.',2271,'AAAL2n///t4='),(49,'2011-01-18 17:53:21','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nThis change speeds up comparison of stable-0.10 vs. stable-0.7 branches from 1m 49s to 56s',2271,'AAAL2n///tg='),(49,'2011-01-18 14:55:53','Uploaded patch set 3.',2271,'AAAL2n///tw='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:20:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2272,'AAAL2n///q8='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:19:34','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, fixed some spelling mistakes.',2272,'AAAL2n///rA='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:19:15','Uploaded patch set 3.',2272,'AAAL2n///rE='),(49,'2011-01-18 17:54:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',2272,'AAAL2n///tc='),(49,'2011-01-18 17:57:51','Patch Set 2:\n\nThis change improves time of synchronization stable-0.10 vs. stable-0.7 branch from 1m 55s to 1m 23s',2272,'AAAL2n///tY='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:06:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2273,'AAAL2n///rg='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:06:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2273,'AAAL2n///rk='),(8,'2011-01-20 20:21:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2274,'AAAL2n///lU='),(8,'2011-01-20 20:21:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2274,'AAAL2n///lY='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:05:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2275,'AAAL2n///ro='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:05:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2275,'AAAL2n///rs='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:38:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2276,'AAAL2n///qs='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:38:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2276,'AAAL2n///qw='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:04:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2277,'AAAL2n///r0='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:03:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',2277,'AAAL2n///r4='),(NULL,'2011-01-19 08:02:33','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.',2277,'AAAL2n///r8='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:04:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2277,'AAAL2n///rw='),(2,'2011-01-19 08:02:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good!',2277,'AAAL2n///sA='),(4,'2011-01-19 21:53:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2278,'AAAL2n///o8='),(2,'2011-03-02 17:06:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2278,'AAAL3H///xQ='),(2,'2011-03-02 17:06:45','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s get this updated.',2278,'AAAL3H///xU='),(2,'2011-03-02 17:06:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',2278,'AAAL3H///xY='),(2,'2011-01-19 12:27:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2279,'AAAL2n///qU='),(2,'2011-01-19 12:27:24','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nSeems fine.',2279,'AAAL2n///qY='),(2,'2011-01-19 12:32:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2280,'AAAL2n///qM='),(2,'2011-01-19 12:32:04','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2280,'AAAL2n///qQ='),(2,'2011-01-19 13:15:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2281,'AAAL2n///p4='),(2,'2011-01-19 13:15:37','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good!',2281,'AAAL2n///p8='),(49,'2011-01-19 12:38:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',2281,'AAAL2n///qI='),(4,'2011-01-21 20:11:57','Uploaded patch set 4.',2282,'AAAL2n///f0='),(4,'2011-01-21 20:20:19','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- rebased and resolved conflicts\n- fixed dependency problem by declaring the egit.mylyn.ui plugin x-friend of the egit.ui plugin\n\n- the action \"Open Corresponding Task\" fails with\n\n!MESSAGE Problem while parsing task id from comment\n!STACK 0\njava.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: No group 1\n	at java.util.regex.Matcher.group(Matcher.java:470)\n	at org.eclipse.mylyn.internal.team.ui.templates.CommitTemplateManager.getTaskIdFromCommentOrLabel(CommitTemplateManager.java:74)\n	at org.eclipse.mylyn.internal.team.ui.actions.TaskFinder.reconcile(TaskFinder.java:174)\n	at org.eclipse.mylyn.internal.team.ui.actions.TaskFinder.initialize(TaskFinder.java:239)\n	at org.eclipse.mylyn.internal.team.ui.actions.TaskFinder.<init>(TaskFinder.java:215)\n	at org.eclipse.mylyn.internal.team.ui.actions.OpenCorrespondingTaskAction.run(OpenCorrespondingTaskAction.java:66)\n	at org.eclipse.mylyn.internal.team.ui.actions.OpenCorrespondingTaskAction.run(OpenCorrespondingTaskAction.java:58)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.PluginAction.runWithEvent(PluginAction.java:251)\n\nfor the commit message notation we use in the egit project (Bug: footer in last paragraph of commit message)',2282,'AAAL2n///fs='),(4,'2011-01-21 20:14:56','Uploaded patch set 5.',2282,'AAAL2n///fw='),(49,'2011-01-19 22:00:44','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nPatchset #1 do not apply clearly on current master and there is an issue with importing internal GitCommit class.',2282,'AAAL2n///n8='),(74,'2011-01-19 21:55:57','Uploaded patch set 3.',2282,'AAAL2n///o0='),(74,'2011-01-19 21:58:07','Patch Set 1: (9 inline comments)\n\nNits resolved.',2282,'AAAL2n///oE='),(74,'2011-01-19 21:52:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',2282,'AAAL2n///pA='),(4,'2011-01-19 21:51:57','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',2282,'AAAL2n///pE='),(49,'2011-01-19 21:48:49','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\nThere are minor white space issues in TaskReferenceFactory.java file.',2282,'AAAL2n///pI='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:23:08','Uploaded patch set 6.',2282,'AAAL2n///S0='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:23:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2282,'AAAL2n///Ss='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:23:32','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.\n\nWe\'ll address Matthias\' issue in the next patch.',2282,'AAAL2n///Sw='),(4,'2011-01-21 10:19:55','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n- I see lot of CoreExceptions when running ui tests\n- remove debug println all over the place, in some places you may want to replace it by debug trace output which can be switched off\n- all TODOs need to be fixed',2283,'AAAL2n///jg='),(100,'2011-01-20 16:21:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',2283,'AAAL2n///lk='),(44,'2011-01-20 13:15:43','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nWith medium sized projects (e.g. org.eclipse.egit.core) I get endless redecoration of the project resource.',2283,'AAAL2n///lw='),(2,'2011-02-03 16:10:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2283,'AAAL2n//+tQ='),(2,'2011-02-03 16:10:58','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2283,'AAAL2n//+tU='),(2,'2011-02-03 16:03:09','Uploaded patch set 4.',2283,'AAAL2n//+tY='),(100,'2011-02-03 08:43:53','Uploaded patch set 3.',2283,'AAAL2n//+vs='),(4,'2011-01-20 09:46:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2284,'AAAL2n///mo='),(4,'2011-01-20 09:46:34','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2284,'AAAL2n///ms='),(4,'2011-01-20 09:46:06','Uploaded patch set 2.',2284,'AAAL2n///mw='),(8,'2011-01-20 07:07:10','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2284,'AAAL2n///nA='),(5,'2011-01-20 07:02:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\n',2284,'AAAL2n///nI='),(4,'2011-01-19 23:34:38','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nthere are still some failing tests left which might be related:\n\n\norg.eclipse.egit.core--All-Tests\norg.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest2\nshouldReturnCommonAncestorAsBase(org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest2)\njava.lang.AssertionError: \n	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:91)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:43)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull(Assert.java:524)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull(Assert.java:535)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest2.commonAssertionsForBaseTree(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest2.java:119)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest2.shouldReturnCommonAncestorAsBase(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest2.java:98)\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)\n\norg.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest\nshouldReturnSrcBranchAsBase(org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest)\njava.lang.AssertionError: \n	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:91)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:43)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull(Assert.java:524)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull(Assert.java:535)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.commonAssertionsForBaseTree(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.java:209)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.shouldReturnSrcBranchAsBase(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest.java:91)\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)\n\norg.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest1\nshouldReturnSrcBranchAsBase(org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest1)\njava.lang.AssertionError: \n	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:91)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:43)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull(Assert.java:524)\n	at org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull(Assert.java:535)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest1.commonAssertionsForBaseTree(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest1.java:108)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.synchronize.GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest1.shouldReturnSrcBranchAsBase(GitResourceVariantTreeSubscriberTest1.java:87)\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)',2284,'AAAL2n///nM='),(4,'2011-01-19 23:32:16','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2284,'AAAL2n///nQ='),(4,'2011-02-01 23:21:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2285,'AAAL2n//+zc='),(4,'2011-02-01 23:21:28','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased and resolved conflicts\n- like the gained speed :-)',2285,'AAAL2n//+zg='),(4,'2011-02-01 23:18:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',2285,'AAAL2n//+zk='),(4,'2011-01-20 10:12:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2286,'AAAL2n///mA='),(49,'2011-01-20 10:01:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2286,'AAAL2n///mc='),(4,'2011-01-20 10:12:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2286,'AAAL2n///mE='),(111,'2011-01-20 10:30:13','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nshould not be needed',2287,'AAAL2n///l8='),(111,'2011-01-20 11:40:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',2288,'AAAL2n///l0='),(46,'2011-01-26 09:34:37','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2288,'AAAL2n///P4='),(46,'2011-01-26 09:34:36','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nRebased to current master',2288,'AAAL2n///P8='),(46,'2011-01-26 09:20:52','Uploaded patch set 3.',2288,'AAAL2n///QI='),(NULL,'2011-01-26 09:20:34','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.',2288,'AAAL2n///QM='),(46,'2011-01-26 09:20:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2288,'AAAL2n///QQ='),(4,'2011-01-21 15:18:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2289,'AAAL2n///iE='),(4,'2011-01-21 15:18:53','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2289,'AAAL2n///iI='),(4,'2011-01-21 15:17:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',2289,'AAAL2n///iM='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:15:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',2289,'AAAL2n///iQ='),(4,'2011-01-21 14:50:39','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2289,'AAAL2n///iU='),(74,'2011-01-20 16:05:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2289,'AAAL2n///lo='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:30:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2290,'AAAL2n///g0='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:30:46','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2290,'AAAL2n///g4='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:30:34','Uploaded patch set 3.',2290,'AAAL2n///g8='),(100,'2011-01-21 13:00:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2290,'AAAL2n///jc='),(100,'2011-01-21 13:01:19','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased onto current master and fixed class documentation',2290,'AAAL2n///jY='),(8,'2011-01-20 19:23:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2290,'AAAL2n///lg='),(4,'2011-01-21 01:11:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2291,'AAAL2n///kE='),(4,'2011-01-21 01:11:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- fixed some formatting issues',2291,'AAAL2n///kI='),(4,'2011-01-21 01:09:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',2291,'AAAL2n///kM='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:32:22','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2292,'AAAL2n///gs='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:32:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2292,'AAAL2n///gw='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:01:52','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2293,'AAAL2n///Tc='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:52:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',2293,'AAAL2n///Tg='),(NULL,'2011-01-25 22:48:39','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 2 of I5b167c9c, however the current patch set is 3.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',2293,'AAAL2n///Tk='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:48:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2293,'AAAL2n///To='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:01:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2293,'AAAL2n///TY='),(1,'2011-01-22 23:19:44','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2294,'AAAL2n///c4='),(8,'2011-01-22 10:50:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2294,'AAAL2n///fA='),(8,'2011-01-22 10:49:09','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2294,'AAAL2n///fE='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:15:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2294,'AAAL2n///TE='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:15:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2294,'AAAL2n///TI='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:15:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',2294,'AAAL2n///TM='),(1,'2011-02-06 00:41:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',2295,'AAAL23////s='),(1,'2011-02-09 05:35:28','Uploaded patch set 5.',2295,'AAAL23///5k='),(1,'2011-02-08 00:54:44','Uploaded patch set 4.',2295,'AAAL23///8E='),(1,'2011-02-21 20:35:37','Uploaded patch set 12.',2295,'AAAL23///ak='),(1,'2011-02-19 02:17:11','Uploaded patch set 11.',2295,'AAAL23///e8='),(1,'2011-02-16 00:56:03','Uploaded patch set 10.',2295,'AAAL23///pU='),(1,'2011-02-15 02:40:57','Uploaded patch set 9.',2295,'AAAL23///tg='),(1,'2011-02-13 22:57:27','Uploaded patch set 8.',2295,'AAAL23///ws='),(1,'2011-02-13 21:52:05','Uploaded patch set 7.',2295,'AAAL23///xE='),(1,'2011-02-13 20:49:11','Uploaded patch set 6.',2295,'AAAL23///zw='),(1,'2011-02-22 06:01:10','Uploaded patch set 13.',2295,'AAAL23///ZY='),(1,'2011-01-28 00:34:54','Patch Set 2:\n\nStill not a final implementation.  However, it can now handle the linux-2.6 repository.  I also added an abstract implementation of a caching service.  I\'ve glued it onto a variant of memcache, and with memcache and cached object lists we can clone linux-2.6 in about 3 minutes.\n\nI\'m keeping it blocked from submission because I want to clean up documentation, and add high-level docs about how the schema works first.  Oh, and unit tests, and ... :-)',2295,'AAAL2n///Dk='),(1,'2011-01-28 00:29:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2295,'AAAL2n///Do='),(1,'2011-01-24 00:00:38','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\nI\'ll be replacing this with a new patch set soon.  This code is broken, on Cassandra it crashes and cannot handle the linux-2.6 repository (but its OK with JGit, which is a whole lot smaller).\n\nI fixed the use of Inflater, but its still not counting objects as fast as is necessary to perform a clone of linux-2.6 from a DHT.  Local Cassandra is pretty quick, because the RPC latency is very low.  But going over a WAN (e.g. my desktop to a Cassandra server in another city) is far too slow.  Right now I suspect its because for linux-2.6 we are packing about 2200 commits per 1MB chunk, but we need to walk something like 200,000 commits just to count the commit objects (forget counting trees!).  That is 90 chunks; if the ping round-trip time is 100 ms we need at least 9 seconds just to ping Cassandra for each chunk sequentially.  Since the chunks have no links between them, its actually double that because we need to look for the object in the ObjectIndexTable first.  So its at least 18 seconds to load the commit list.  On local disk this occurs almost instantly.',2295,'AAAL2n///Zo='),(107,'2011-03-29 02:33:06','Patch Set 20: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/197/ : SUCCESS',2295,'AAAL33///0s='),(107,'2011-03-29 02:30:00','Patch Set 20:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/197/ ',2295,'AAAL33///0w='),(1,'2011-03-29 02:07:30','Uploaded patch set 20.',2295,'AAAL33///18='),(107,'2011-04-01 22:13:40','Patch Set 21: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/219/ : SUCCESS',2295,'AAAL33///Qk='),(107,'2011-04-01 22:11:05','Patch Set 21:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/219/ ',2295,'AAAL33///Qo='),(1,'2011-04-01 22:03:27','Uploaded patch set 21.',2295,'AAAL33///RM='),(107,'2011-03-06 22:27:45','Patch Set 14: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nSUCCESS: https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/33/',2295,'AAAL3H///lc='),(107,'2011-03-06 22:24:41','Patch Set 14:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/33/ ',2295,'AAAL3H///lk='),(1,'2011-03-05 03:15:19','Uploaded patch set 14.',2295,'AAAL3H///m0='),(1,'2011-03-16 00:43:01','Uploaded patch set 15.',2295,'AAAL3n///1s='),(107,'2011-03-16 00:47:43','Patch Set 15: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/94/ : SUCCESS',2295,'AAAL3n///1U='),(107,'2011-03-16 00:45:14','Patch Set 15:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/94/ ',2295,'AAAL3n///1Y='),(107,'2011-03-19 21:16:43','Patch Set 19: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/159/ : SUCCESS',2295,'AAAL3n///dI='),(107,'2011-03-19 21:14:11','Patch Set 19:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/159/ ',2295,'AAAL3n///dM='),(1,'2011-03-19 21:14:07','Uploaded patch set 19.',2295,'AAAL3n///dQ='),(107,'2011-03-18 18:55:03','Patch Set 18:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/156/ ',2295,'AAAL3n///ec='),(107,'2011-03-18 18:57:31','Patch Set 18: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/156/ : SUCCESS',2295,'AAAL3n///eY='),(107,'2011-03-18 18:37:19','Patch Set 17:\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/147/ : SUCCESS',2295,'AAAL3n///fg='),(107,'2011-03-18 18:34:48','Patch Set 17:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/147/ ',2295,'AAAL3n///fk='),(1,'2011-03-18 18:34:07','Uploaded patch set 18.',2295,'AAAL3n///fw='),(1,'2011-03-18 18:23:36','Uploaded patch set 17.',2295,'AAAL3n///g4='),(107,'2011-03-18 16:37:13','Patch Set 16: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/140/ : SUCCESS',2295,'AAAL3n///hg='),(107,'2011-03-18 16:34:45','Patch Set 16:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/140/ ',2295,'AAAL3n///hk='),(1,'2011-03-18 16:12:34','Uploaded patch set 16.',2295,'AAAL3n///i8='),(2,'2011-04-06 18:40:22','Patch Set 21:\n\nShawn, if you plan on getting this in for 0.12, you only have a couple of weeks :)',2295,'AAAL4H///5I='),(4,'2011-04-13 14:47:45','Patch Set 21: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(7 inline comments)\n\nso far I only reviewed a part of this huge change ...\nwill continue soon',2295,'AAAL4H///cM='),(4,'2011-04-14 14:16:40','Patch Set 21: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2295,'AAAL4H///Yc='),(107,'2011-04-30 01:28:05','Patch Set 22: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/334/ : SUCCESS',2295,'AABOIn///8I='),(107,'2011-04-30 01:25:16','Patch Set 22:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/334/ ',2295,'AABOIn///8M='),(1,'2011-04-30 01:25:12','Uploaded patch set 22.',2295,'AABOIn///8Q='),(1,'2011-05-05 17:36:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2295,'AABOIn///g4='),(107,'2011-05-05 17:30:05','Patch Set 24: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/368/ : SUCCESS',2295,'AABOIn///g8='),(1,'2011-05-05 17:27:50','Patch Set 24: Looks good to me, approved; IP review completed\n\nThis is working well for me now. I\'d like to put it in-tree and correct any remaining items as follow-up changes.\n\nI\'ll move over the Cassandra and HBase SPIs as independent changes.',2295,'AABOIn///hA='),(107,'2011-05-05 17:27:06','Patch Set 24:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/368/ ',2295,'AABOIn///hE='),(1,'2011-05-05 17:27:03','Uploaded patch set 24.',2295,'AABOIn///hI='),(1,'2011-05-05 17:05:08','Patch Set 21: (9 inline comments)\n\n',2295,'AABOIn///hU='),(4,'2011-05-05 14:25:39','Patch Set 23: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2295,'AABOIn///jY='),(1,'2011-05-05 01:44:26','Uploaded patch set 23.',2295,'AABOIn///lg='),(107,'2011-05-05 01:49:48','Patch Set 23: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/358/ : SUCCESS',2295,'AABOIn///lQ='),(107,'2011-05-05 01:47:03','Patch Set 23:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/358/ ',2295,'AABOIn///lU='),(4,'2011-01-21 13:46:52','Uploaded patch set 5.',2296,'AAAL2n///i8='),(4,'2011-01-21 14:40:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2296,'AAAL2n///ik='),(4,'2011-01-21 14:40:24','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2296,'AAAL2n///io='),(4,'2011-01-21 14:39:22','Uploaded patch set 6.',2296,'AAAL2n///iw='),(49,'2011-01-21 07:26:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',2296,'AAAL2n///j4='),(49,'2011-01-21 07:20:08','Patch Set 1:\n\nYes, this change can be also reverted',2296,'AAAL2n///j8='),(4,'2011-01-21 13:44:07','Uploaded patch set 4.',2296,'AAAL2n///jM='),(4,'2011-01-21 13:40:45','Uploaded patch set 3.',2296,'AAAL2n///jU='),(4,'2011-01-21 01:19:41','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhat\'s about change I098f8c05 ? Do you want to revert them also ?',2296,'AAAL2n///kA='),(4,'2011-01-21 13:46:52','Uploaded patch set 3.',2297,'AAAL2n///i4='),(4,'2011-01-21 14:43:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2297,'AAAL2n///ic='),(4,'2011-01-21 14:43:41','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2297,'AAAL2n///ig='),(4,'2011-01-21 14:39:23','Uploaded patch set 4.',2297,'AAAL2n///is='),(4,'2011-01-21 13:44:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',2297,'AAAL2n///jI='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:19:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2298,'AAAL2n///h0='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:19:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2298,'AAAL2n///h4='),(4,'2011-01-21 13:44:42','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nmissed change-id',2299,'AAAL2n///jE='),(49,'2011-01-21 15:21:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2300,'AAAL2n///ho='),(49,'2011-01-21 15:21:08','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2300,'AAAL2n///hs='),(49,'2011-01-21 15:20:18','Uploaded patch set 5.',2300,'AAAL2n///hw='),(4,'2011-01-21 14:39:22','Uploaded patch set 4.',2300,'AAAL2n///i0='),(4,'2011-01-21 13:46:52','Uploaded patch set 3.',2300,'AAAL2n///jA='),(4,'2011-01-21 13:44:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',2300,'AAAL2n///jQ='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:18:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2301,'AAAL2n///h8='),(46,'2011-01-21 15:26:09','Patch Set 1:\n\nBroke my local build, please also apply\n\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,2302',2301,'AAAL2n///hU='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:18:58','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nNeed this so all EGit related projects are in sync.',2301,'AAAL2n///iA='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:27:58','Patch Set 2:\n\nDone.',2302,'AAAL2n///hE='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:27:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2302,'AAAL2n///hI='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:27:54','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nDone.',2302,'AAAL2n///hM='),(2,'2011-01-21 15:27:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',2302,'AAAL2n///hQ='),(49,'2011-01-22 23:10:44','Uploaded patch set 5.',2303,'AAAL2n///dc='),(49,'2011-01-22 23:10:29','Patch Set 4: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2303,'AAAL2n///dg='),(4,'2011-01-22 22:59:07','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',2303,'AAAL2n///eU='),(49,'2011-01-21 21:24:22','Patch Set 4:\n\nrebased',2303,'AAAL2n///fg='),(49,'2011-01-21 21:23:54','Uploaded patch set 4.',2303,'AAAL2n///fo='),(49,'2011-01-21 17:06:36','Uploaded patch set 3.',2303,'AAAL2n///gA='),(4,'2011-01-21 16:13:23','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nsomething is wrong here, look at the changes when synchronizing jgit master with stable-0.7, I doubt that the changes displayed are correct. Almost every change claims to change pom.xml ...',2303,'AAAL2n///gU='),(115,'2011-01-21 16:09:58','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis looks wrong to me.  You can\'t replace code like:\n  workspaceRoot.getContainerForLocation(location);	\nwith:\n  resource = workspaceRoot.getFile(location.makeRelativeTo(workspaceRo\not.getLocation()));\n\nYou are making implicit assumptions about how resources are layed out in the filesystem relative to the workspace.  It\'s important to remember that IProjects may live anywhere on disk, and IResources in general may be links to anywhere on disk.  As a result when trying to resolve an filesystem location to a workpace full path, you must use the workspace methods #{get|find}{Files|Containers}ForLocation.\n\nPerformance of this has been improved in 3.7.  If it\'s still suboptimal, please file a bug against core.resources.',2303,'AAAL2n///gY='),(49,'2011-01-21 15:29:44','Uploaded patch set 2.',2303,'AAAL2n///hA='),(4,'2011-01-27 00:11:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2303,'AAAL2n///I4='),(4,'2011-01-27 00:11:40','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- fixed commit message',2303,'AAAL2n///I8='),(4,'2011-01-27 00:08:08','Uploaded patch set 7.',2303,'AAAL2n///JA='),(49,'2011-01-26 09:30:15','Patch Set 6:\n\nRebased',2303,'AAAL2n///QA='),(49,'2011-01-26 09:29:52','Uploaded patch set 6.',2303,'AAAL2n///QE='),(1,'2011-01-23 21:22:28','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2304,'AAAL2n///ag='),(2,'2011-01-21 16:29:49','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nLooks ok, will wait for Shawn\'s comments.',2304,'AAAL2n///gM='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:34:13','Uploaded patch set 3.',2304,'AAAL2n///Uc='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:34:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2304,'AAAL2n///UU='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:34:30','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good now, thanks Sasa.',2304,'AAAL2n///UY='),(9,'2011-01-25 07:42:11','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2304,'AAAL2n///Wc='),(9,'2011-01-25 07:39:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',2304,'AAAL2n///Wg='),(49,'2011-01-22 23:05:38','Uploaded patch set 3.',2305,'AAAL2n///d4='),(4,'2011-01-22 22:53:49','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',2305,'AAAL2n///ek='),(49,'2011-01-21 21:24:38','Patch Set 2:\n\nrebased',2305,'AAAL2n///fc='),(49,'2011-01-21 21:23:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2305,'AAAL2n///fk='),(4,'2011-01-26 23:03:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2305,'AAAL2n///Kc='),(4,'2011-01-26 23:03:18','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- fixed typo in commit message',2305,'AAAL2n///Kg='),(4,'2011-01-26 23:00:43','Uploaded patch set 6.',2305,'AAAL2n///Kk='),(49,'2011-01-26 18:31:59','Uploaded patch set 5.',2305,'AAAL2n///L4='),(49,'2011-01-26 09:15:25','Uploaded patch set 4.',2305,'AAAL2n///Qc='),(49,'2011-01-26 09:15:46','Patch Set 4:\n\nRebased on current master',2305,'AAAL2n///QU='),(49,'2011-01-26 09:15:44','Patch Set 4:\n\nRebased on current master',2305,'AAAL2n///QY='),(100,'2011-01-21 17:08:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',2306,'AAAL2n///f8='),(100,'2011-01-27 20:50:00','Uploaded patch set 3.',2306,'AAAL2n///Fc='),(2,'2011-01-31 16:10:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2306,'AAAL2n//+78='),(2,'2011-01-31 16:10:34','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nClever.',2306,'AAAL2n//+8A='),(2,'2011-01-31 16:08:55','Uploaded patch set 4.',2306,'AAAL2n//+8E='),(49,'2011-01-22 23:12:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',2307,'AAAL2n///dM='),(49,'2011-01-22 23:12:32','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2307,'AAAL2n///dQ='),(4,'2011-01-22 23:01:11','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nlooks good but some typos in commit message',2307,'AAAL2n///eI='),(2,'2011-01-27 14:03:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2307,'AAAL2n///HQ='),(2,'2011-01-27 14:03:32','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2307,'AAAL2n///HU='),(49,'2011-01-27 07:53:57','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebased',2307,'AAAL2n///IE='),(49,'2011-01-27 07:53:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',2307,'AAAL2n///II='),(2,'2011-01-27 04:38:18','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCan you rebase and fix the conflicts?',2307,'AAAL2n///IY='),(49,'2011-01-22 23:18:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',2308,'AAAL2n///c8='),(4,'2011-01-22 23:02:50','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2308,'AAAL2n///d8='),(49,'2011-01-22 23:18:30','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nrebased',2308,'AAAL2n///dE='),(49,'2011-01-27 08:05:58','Patch Set 4:\n\nRebased',2308,'AAAL2n///H4='),(49,'2011-01-27 08:05:40','Uploaded patch set 4.',2308,'AAAL2n///H8='),(2,'2011-01-27 14:06:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2308,'AAAL2n///HI='),(2,'2011-01-27 14:06:44','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2308,'AAAL2n///HM='),(49,'2011-01-27 07:58:08','Uploaded patch set 3.',2308,'AAAL2n///IA='),(114,'2011-01-23 19:26:16','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2309,'AAAL2n///a8='),(1,'2011-01-23 21:16:35','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2309,'AAAL2n///as='),(8,'2011-01-23 15:39:58','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; IP review completed\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\n',2309,'AAAL2n///bQ='),(114,'2011-01-23 14:28:58','Uploaded patch set 2.',2309,'AAAL2n///cc='),(1,'2011-01-22 23:52:33','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',2309,'AAAL2n///co='),(114,'2011-01-22 19:14:35','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis change originated as a change to Gerrit. The subtree log was split out into its own change to JGit.\n\nhttps://review.source.android.com/#change,20163',2309,'AAAL2n///e0='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:41:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2309,'AAAL2n///T8='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:41:05','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2309,'AAAL2n///UA='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:40:48','Uploaded patch set 4.',2309,'AAAL2n///UE='),(114,'2011-01-25 03:46:12','Uploaded patch set 3.',2309,'AAAL2n///Wo='),(114,'2011-01-24 16:40:32','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2309,'AAAL2n///Yk='),(1,'2011-02-18 05:21:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2310,'AAAL23///go='),(1,'2011-02-18 05:21:58','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThanks Jesse. :-)',2310,'AAAL23///gs='),(114,'2011-02-17 19:45:37','Uploaded patch set 6.',2310,'AAAL23///ic='),(114,'2011-02-17 19:50:03','Patch Set 5: (4 inline comments)\n\n',2310,'AAAL23///iM='),(114,'2011-02-17 19:49:07','Uploaded patch set 7.',2310,'AAAL23///iQ='),(1,'2011-02-17 19:15:35','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',2310,'AAAL23///iw='),(114,'2011-02-15 21:03:39','Uploaded patch set 5.',2310,'AAAL23///q4='),(114,'2011-02-15 21:05:40','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2310,'AAAL23///qw='),(114,'2011-01-28 19:28:41','Patch Set 3:\n\nI\'ve added some test cases.  Please let me know what you think.\n\nThanks',2310,'AAAL2n///Ac='),(114,'2011-01-28 19:26:23','Uploaded patch set 3.',2310,'AAAL2n///Ag='),(8,'2011-01-23 15:36:14','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(12 inline comments)\n\n',2310,'AAAL2n///bc='),(114,'2011-01-22 19:14:18','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis change originated as a change to Gerrit. The subtree log was split out into its own change to JGit.\n\nhttps://review.source.android.com/#change,20163',2310,'AAAL2n///e4='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:44:57','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nJesse, can you add some tests for this?',2310,'AAAL2n///SI='),(114,'2011-01-25 03:50:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',2310,'AAAL2n///Wk='),(2,'2011-02-01 20:05:22','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nBesides the small doc change Jesse will do, do you see anything wrong with this Shawn?',2310,'AAAL2n//+0M='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:34:36','Uploaded patch set 4.',2310,'AAAL2n//+80='),(1,'2011-02-03 16:41:52','Patch Set 4: (2 inline comments)\n\n',2310,'AAAL2n//+sw='),(114,'2011-02-03 15:03:01','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2310,'AAAL2n//+uA='),(114,'2011-02-03 14:34:00','Patch Set 4: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2310,'AAAL2n//+uQ='),(1,'2011-02-01 21:09:58','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(8 inline comments)\n\n',2310,'AAAL2n//+zo='),(8,'2011-01-23 15:17:28','Patch Set 1:\n\nThere are no unit tests here',2311,'AAAL2n///cQ='),(114,'2011-01-22 19:12:51','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis change originated as a change to Gerrit.  The subtree log was split out into its own change to JGit.\n\nhttps://review.source.android.com/#change,20163',2311,'AAAL2n///e8='),(8,'2011-01-29 22:55:41','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2311,'AAAL2n//+/A='),(114,'2011-03-31 15:06:53','Patch Set 3:\n\nHi All,\n\nAny thoughts on this change?\n\nThanks,\nJesse',2311,'AAAL33///dk='),(107,'2011-03-30 22:08:13','Patch Set 3: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/206/ : SUCCESS',2311,'AAAL33///i0='),(107,'2011-03-30 22:05:18','Patch Set 3:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/206/ ',2311,'AAAL33///jE='),(114,'2011-03-30 22:05:15','Uploaded patch set 3.',2311,'AAAL33///jI='),(2,'2011-04-01 22:51:48','Patch Set 3:\n\nShawn, ping?',2311,'AAAL33///P8='),(2,'2011-03-17 16:31:12','Patch Set 2: Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nWe\'ll need a CQ, but I\'ll wait for comments from Shawn until I start the CQ process...',2311,'AAAL3n///qo='),(114,'2011-03-17 14:40:00','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI\'ve added some test cases.  I\'d also like some feedback in general on this approach.\n\nTo reiterate, the reason we\'re making this change is to add support for automatic subtree splitting/rewriting to Gerrit as an alternative to submodules.  For some background on this, visit our original change to Gerrit here: https://review.source.android.com/#change,20163.\n\nWe\'ve been running a modified version of Gerrit here at Garmin that includes this change.  We\'re hoping that we can get our changes mainlined so we don\'t have to run a custom version.',2311,'AAAL3n///r8='),(107,'2011-03-17 14:21:24','Patch Set 2:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/113/ ',2311,'AAAL3n///s0='),(107,'2011-03-17 14:24:06','Patch Set 2: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/113/ : SUCCESS',2311,'AAAL3n///sw='),(114,'2011-03-17 14:19:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',2311,'AAAL3n///tE='),(114,'2011-05-02 15:21:38','Patch Set 3:\n\nPing - any thoughts on this patch?\n\nThanks,\nJesse',2311,'AABOIn///3s='),(8,'2011-01-23 12:18:45','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI can only guess what this does. Is it a kind of filter-tree?\n\nAdd more help texts that this:\n\njgit subtree [VAL] [VAL ...] [--help (-h)] [--rewrite] [--rewrite-all]\n\n --help (-h) : display this help text',2312,'AAAL2n///cg='),(8,'2011-01-23 15:07:36','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis does not compile in Eclipse since org.eclipse.jgit.subtree is not exported',2312,'AAAL2n///cY='),(8,'2011-01-29 22:55:12','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2312,'AAAL2n//+/E='),(114,'2011-03-17 14:20:40','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nThis needs work before it should be considered for merge or even significant review.  I just want to have it out as a way to test subtree split/rewrite on the command line.',2312,'AAAL3n///s8='),(107,'2011-03-17 14:26:24','Patch Set 2: Build Successful\n\nBuild Successful \n \nhttps://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/114/ : SUCCESS',2312,'AAAL3n///so='),(107,'2011-03-17 14:24:07','Patch Set 2:\n\nBuild Started https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/jgit.gerrit/114/ ',2312,'AAAL3n///ss='),(114,'2011-03-17 14:19:22','Uploaded patch set 2.',2312,'AAAL3n///tA='),(4,'2011-01-23 23:40:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2313,'AAAL2n///aI='),(4,'2011-01-23 23:40:58','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2313,'AAAL2n///aM='),(8,'2011-01-23 18:30:19','Uploaded patch set 4.',2313,'AAAL2n///bE='),(8,'2011-01-23 18:29:45','Uploaded patch set 3.',2313,'AAAL2n///bI='),(8,'2011-01-23 18:25:38','Uploaded patch set 2.',2313,'AAAL2n///bM='),(8,'2011-01-23 21:05:19','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nunsquashed',2314,'AAAL2n///a0='),(8,'2011-01-23 21:04:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',2315,'AAAL2n///a4='),(4,'2011-01-24 00:07:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2315,'AAAL2n///Zg='),(4,'2011-01-24 00:07:43','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nfixed typos and whitespace error',2315,'AAAL2n///Zk='),(4,'2011-01-23 23:58:46','Uploaded patch set 3.',2315,'AAAL2n///Zs='),(4,'2011-01-23 23:58:31','Patch Set 2: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2315,'AAAL2n///Zw='),(4,'2011-01-23 23:00:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2316,'AAAL2n///aQ='),(1,'2011-01-27 17:41:17','Uploaded patch set 2.',2316,'AAAL2n///Gc='),(1,'2011-01-27 17:41:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2316,'AAAL2n///GU='),(1,'2011-01-27 17:41:41','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2316,'AAAL2n///GY='),(1,'2011-01-24 06:23:19','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\nTotally untested.  I just finished writing what seems like the basic implementation.  :-)',2317,'AAAL2n///Zc='),(1,'2011-01-27 16:46:49','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2318,'AAAL2n///Go='),(1,'2011-01-27 16:46:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2318,'AAAL2n///Gs='),(4,'2011-01-26 00:19:06','Patch Set 1: (4 inline comments)\n\n',2318,'AAAL2n///Q4='),(4,'2011-01-26 00:17:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',2318,'AAAL2n///RM='),(1,'2011-01-25 00:15:17','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',2318,'AAAL2n///Ws='),(116,'2011-01-27 09:48:30','Uploaded patch set 6.',2319,'AAAL2n///H0='),(116,'2011-01-27 09:51:47','Patch Set 6:\n\nUpdated change set description according to latest implementation. Added logging statement. Fixed code style.',2319,'AAAL2n///Hw='),(113,'2011-01-26 13:15:38','Patch Set 5:\n\nWhat do you think about the idea es below?\n\nWe could check for an optional file in the /.settings/ directory (where eclipse related configuration files are) and read the hostname/URL from that file.\n\nThe file could be for example: /.settings/org.eclipse.mylyn.tasks.core.TaskRepository\n\nThe advantage of this solution is that this file will be also copied during cloning.',2319,'AAAL2n///PE='),(4,'2011-01-26 00:04:48','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(7 inline comments)\n\n',2319,'AAAL2n///RQ='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:31:20','Uploaded patch set 5.',2319,'AAAL2n///So='),(113,'2011-01-25 18:36:35','Patch Set 4:\n\n@Matthias The implementation could check the optional property \"bugtraq.url\" and if available taking the host from that URL. If \"bugtraq.url\" is not available in the config file, we could assume that git and task repositories are on the same host.\n\nWhat do you think?',2319,'AAAL2n///Uk='),(116,'2011-01-25 17:40:03','Patch Set 4:\n\nNow task repository url is taken from repository config value \"bugtraq.url\".\nAlso fixed new lines and some warnings.',2319,'AAAL2n///V4='),(116,'2011-01-25 17:24:33','Uploaded patch set 4.',2319,'AAAL2n///V8='),(49,'2011-01-25 18:08:15','Patch Set 4: (12 inline comments)\n\nMinor code style hints.',2319,'AAAL2n///VE='),(113,'2011-01-25 15:05:09','Patch Set 3:\n\n@Matthias \'Maybe we should simply store this as a repository configuration parameter ?\'\n\nSubversion provides a property bugtraq:url (eg https://codebeamer.com/cb/proj/tracker/itemDetails.do?task_id=%BUGID%) thus it can be figured out where the issue tracker host is.\n\nWe would like to see the upcoming egit support \'Open Corresponding Task\' support because that is import not just for us but also for our customers.',2319,'AAAL2n///WY='),(4,'2011-01-24 22:39:51','Patch Set 3:\n\nplease fix line endings, diffs are currently rendered useless by wrong line endings. We use UTF-8 text encoding and unix text file line delimiters (LF) (see Eclipse Preferences > General > Workspace)\n\nAssuming that bug tracker and repository are on the same host IMHO doesn\'t work (at least it doesn\'t work for any of the projects I am participating in). I think we need to store the association between bug tracker base url and git repository. Assuming that all bugs for a given repository are tracked in the same bug tracker seems reasonable to me. Maybe we should simply store this as a repository configuration parameter ?',2319,'AAAL2n///XQ='),(4,'2011-01-24 22:39:50','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nplease fix line endings, diffs are currently rendered useless by wrong line endings. We use UTF-8 text encoding and unix text file line delimiters (LF) (see Eclipse Preferences > General > Workspace)\n\nAssuming that bug tracker and repository are on the same host IMHO doesn\'t work (at least it doesn\'t work for any of the projects I am participating in). I think we need to store the association between bug tracker base url and git repository. Assuming that all bugs for a given repository are tracked in the same bug tracker seems reasonable to me. Maybe we should simply store this as a repository configuration parameter ?',2319,'AAAL2n///XU='),(116,'2011-01-24 16:22:18','Patch Set 2:\n\nJust added Change-Id and signature.',2319,'AAAL2n///Y8='),(116,'2011-01-24 19:21:49','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebased the change set\r\n\r\n>Assuming that bug tracker and git repository reside on the same host is an over-simplification which e.g. fails for Eclipse\r\n\r\nThis is true, but if repository url is not provided at all, things go even worse. \r\nMylyn will use first repository provider which will say that it found something like task id in commit message.\r\n\r\nI\'ve made this url resolving optional now, so if nothing matches, the adapter will return null as before.\r\n\r\nFor bugs.eclipse.org Open Corresponding task works if full bug url is pasted into commit message.\r\n\r\nWhat do you think if repository url will be read from some special config entry? For example \'bugtracker.url\'',2319,'AAAL2n///Yc='),(116,'2011-01-24 19:05:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',2319,'AAAL2n///Yg='),(4,'2011-01-24 16:30:24','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\nThis change looks like it\'s based on change I2d265c8b. Don\'t mix up your change with Benny\'s as they are done by different authors. To resolve this issue rebase your change onto change I2d265c8b. Let me know if you need help with that.\n\nAssuming that bug tracker and git repository reside on the same host is an over-simplification which e.g. fails for Eclipse',2319,'AAAL2n///Ys='),(116,'2011-01-24 19:26:39','Patch Set 3:\n\nSorry for formatting - new line chars seems to be dropped...',2319,'AAAL2n///YY='),(116,'2011-01-24 16:21:02','Uploaded patch set 2.',2319,'AAAL2n///ZA='),(2,'2011-01-31 17:26:20','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2319,'AAAL2n//+7k='),(2,'2011-01-31 17:26:20','Patch Set 7: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThis is good enough to be pushed now.',2319,'AAAL2n//+7o='),(2,'2011-01-31 17:21:37','Uploaded patch set 7.',2319,'AAAL2n//+7s='),(4,'2011-01-25 23:05:30','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2320,'AAAL2n///TQ='),(4,'2011-01-25 23:05:29','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2320,'AAAL2n///TU='),(2,'2011-01-27 19:25:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2321,'AAAL2n///F0='),(2,'2011-01-27 19:25:22','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2321,'AAAL2n///F4='),(49,'2011-01-27 14:24:13','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased',2321,'AAAL2n///HA='),(49,'2011-01-27 14:23:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',2321,'AAAL2n///HE='),(1,'2011-01-24 20:58:16','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(11 inline comments)\n\nWe should also consider the refs/replace/ namespace at the same time.  Its the \"new way\" of doing grafts... :-\\',2322,'AAAL2n///Xc='),(8,'2011-01-24 20:56:39','Patch Set 1:\n\nColoring commits is not enough. The graft is a relationship\nand not a commit, i.e. in this case C can be reached from A via the normal relationships, as well as via a graft- \n\nHEAD: A---B---C-(grafted)--D\n       \\                  /\n        X----------------Y\n\nGranted, this is an exotic case.',2322,'AAAL2n///Xk='),(8,'2011-01-24 20:46:54','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhat is till missing and I want to do with this is to color commits/relationships so a simplified graph can show that a certain commit relationship is via a graft, even when neither the parent, not child directly touche by the graft is visible.',2322,'AAAL2n///YQ='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:59:54','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI tried that with org.eclipse.cdt repository containing 134 projects. During project import I see a lot of progress dialogs popping up for a millisecond and in the main dialog I can\'t cancel. So it looks like this needs some improvement.',2323,'AAAL2n///NY='),(46,'2011-02-01 17:34:10','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nSuperseded by Change-Id: I52b7564454353d6ceb843a5ae5f493e61a88c10b',2323,'AAAL2n//+0w='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:00:52','Uploaded patch set 3.',2324,'AAAL2n///O4='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:05:51','Patch Set 3:\n\n- rebased\n- fixed comments from patchset 2',2324,'AAAL2n///OM='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:03:59','Patch Set 2: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2324,'AAAL2n///Oo='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:05:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2324,'AAAL2n///OQ='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:05:05','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2324,'AAAL2n///OU='),(46,'2011-01-26 07:47:59','Uploaded patch set 2.',2324,'AAAL2n///Q0='),(46,'2011-01-26 07:56:19','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed sorting problem for multi-project case',2324,'AAAL2n///Qw='),(4,'2011-01-25 22:41:27','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI would prefer if the sort by path would include the project name, it looks odd if files are sorted just by file path relative to their project',2324,'AAAL2n///T4='),(NULL,'2011-01-25 23:35:44','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.',2325,'AAAL2n///Sc='),(NULL,'2011-01-25 23:34:57','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.',2325,'AAAL2n///Sg='),(4,'2011-01-25 23:34:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2325,'AAAL2n///Sk='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:38:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2325,'AAAL2n///SM='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:38:13','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2325,'AAAL2n///SQ='),(2,'2011-01-25 23:37:55','Uploaded patch set 4.',2325,'AAAL2n///SU='),(4,'2011-01-25 23:37:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',2325,'AAAL2n///SY='),(46,'2011-01-25 16:11:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',2325,'AAAL2n///WM='),(4,'2011-01-25 15:52:30','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2325,'AAAL2n///WQ='),(4,'2011-01-25 23:22:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2326,'AAAL2n///S4='),(4,'2011-01-25 23:22:04','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- improved formatting of commit message',2326,'AAAL2n///S8='),(4,'2011-01-25 23:21:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',2326,'AAAL2n///TA='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:37:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2327,'AAAL2n///UI='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:37:11','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2327,'AAAL2n///UM='),(2,'2011-01-25 22:37:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2327,'AAAL2n///UQ='),(2,'2011-01-27 04:36:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2328,'AAAL2n///Ic='),(2,'2011-01-27 04:36:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2328,'AAAL2n///Ig='),(2,'2011-01-27 04:36:18','Uploaded patch set 2.',2328,'AAAL2n///Ik='),(4,'2011-01-27 22:37:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2329,'AAAL2n///FE='),(4,'2011-01-27 22:37:03','Patch Set 5:\n\nrebased',2329,'AAAL2n///FM='),(4,'2011-01-27 22:36:48','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLet\'s improve the usability in a subsequent change and also explore if we could benefit from the solution Robin mentioned in http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/egit-dev/msg01792.html',2329,'AAAL2n///FQ='),(4,'2011-01-27 22:34:44','Uploaded patch set 5.',2329,'AAAL2n///FY='),(46,'2011-01-27 12:32:45','Uploaded patch set 4.',2329,'AAAL2n///Hg='),(49,'2011-01-26 20:55:15','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nOK, explanation for first remark is reasonable for me;)',2329,'AAAL2n///K4='),(4,'2011-01-26 22:06:04','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\ntoggle buttons in compare view do not work as I would expect, e.g. when \"Show added files only\" is clicked I still also see modified files, same for \"Show deleted files only\". It also sounds strange that both can be clicked simultaneously, I think semantics of these toggles is unclear (at least I don\'t understand them)\n\nAgain it would be nice if multi-selection of multiple projects in the same repo would be possible',2329,'AAAL2n///Kw='),(46,'2011-01-26 20:28:04','Patch Set 3:\n\nAs for remark 1., I see this as a valid requirement, but we can add this later, I think. Then we would probably want all the other nice features, like search, toggle between \"Show All\" and \"Normal\" history and so on.\nAs for remark 2., I have rebased this on the other change which fixes this.',2329,'AAAL2n///LE='),(46,'2011-01-26 20:25:50','Uploaded patch set 3.',2329,'AAAL2n///LI='),(49,'2011-01-26 17:09:22','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n1. List of commit in dialog should be reduced only to commits that affects selected file\r\n2. It seams that ignored folders (I always see bin folder in comparison) are included in \"Git Tree Compare\"',2329,'AAAL2n///NE='),(46,'2011-01-25 16:59:20','Patch Set 2:\n\nMissing String Externalization added',2329,'AAAL2n///WE='),(46,'2011-01-25 16:58:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',2329,'AAAL2n///WI='),(4,'2011-01-25 23:50:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2330,'AAAL2n///R8='),(4,'2011-01-25 23:50:35','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2330,'AAAL2n///SA='),(4,'2011-01-25 23:49:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',2330,'AAAL2n///SE='),(4,'2011-01-28 15:25:50','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2331,'AAAL2n///B0='),(4,'2011-01-28 15:25:04','Uploaded patch set 3.',2331,'AAAL2n///B4='),(NULL,'2011-01-28 15:23:03','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',2331,'AAAL2n///B8='),(4,'2011-01-28 15:25:50','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2331,'AAAL2n///Bw='),(4,'2011-01-28 15:23:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nusers still also need msysgit on windows for operations not yet suppported by egit, so it\'s better to do this check and ask the user to explicitly set HOME in case the default setting isn\'t ok',2331,'AAAL2n///CA='),(44,'2011-01-28 09:32:43','Patch Set 2:\n\nCurrently JGit computes HOME on Windows in the same way as msysgit.\nI think we should keep this to ensure compatibility with the git command line.',2331,'AAAL2n///DA='),(8,'2011-01-27 20:33:50','Patch Set 2:\n\nI was think about having a workspace setting instead of $HOME. If that variable is set we would use that instead of guessing where HOME is.',2331,'AAAL2n///Fg='),(44,'2011-01-27 12:18:36','Patch Set 2:\n\nWhat is a \"workspace overide\"?',2331,'AAAL2n///Hk='),(8,'2011-01-25 19:05:26','Patch Set 2:\n\nAn even better way would be to allow the user to set the \"HOME\" directory from the preferences, I was kind of lazy, so\nI just tried to emulate what I though MSys did.\n\nJust replace the do-not-show-setting with a workspace override.',2331,'AAAL2n///Ug='),(44,'2011-01-25 17:18:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2331,'AAAL2n///WA='),(4,'2011-01-27 22:37:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2332,'AAAL2n///FA='),(4,'2011-01-27 22:37:28','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2332,'AAAL2n///FI='),(4,'2011-01-27 22:34:45','Uploaded patch set 6.',2332,'AAAL2n///FU='),(46,'2011-01-27 12:32:45','Uploaded patch set 5.',2332,'AAAL2n///Hc='),(46,'2011-01-27 12:34:05','Patch Set 5:\n\nFixed NullPointer.\nEnabled multi-selection.\nImproved tooltips over \"Added\" and \"Deleted\" buttons.',2332,'AAAL2n///HY='),(46,'2011-01-27 07:23:44','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nHold it...',2332,'AAAL2n///IQ='),(46,'2011-01-27 07:18:47','Uploaded patch set 4.',2332,'AAAL2n///IU='),(4,'2011-01-26 21:53:26','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI hit this NPE on one project I tried to compare\n\neclipse.buildId=M20100909-0800\njava.version=1.6.0_22\njava.vendor=Apple Inc.\nBootLoader constants: OS=macosx, ARCH=x86_64, WS=cocoa, NL=en_US\nFramework arguments:  -product org.eclipse.platform.ide\nCommand-line arguments:  -product org.eclipse.platform.ide -data /Users/d029788/Documents/workspace/egit/../runtime-New_configuration -dev file:/Users/d029788/Documents/workspace/egit/.metadata/.plugins/org.eclipse.pde.core/EGit/dev.properties -os macosx -ws cocoa -arch x86_64 -consoleLog\n\n\nError\nWed Jan 26 22:47:44 CET 2011\n\n\njava.lang.NullPointerException\nat org.eclipse.egit.core.internal.storage.CommitFileRevision.<init>(CommitFileRevision.java:59)\nat org.eclipse.egit.core.internal.storage.GitFileRevision.inCommit(GitFileRevision.java:50)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.dialogs.CompareTreeView.buildMaps(CompareTreeView.java:737)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.dialogs.CompareTreeView.access$25(CompareTreeView.java:614)\nat org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.dialogs.CompareTreeView$12.run(CompareTreeView.java:584)\nat org.eclipse.jface.operation.ModalContext$ModalContextThread.run(ModalContext.java:121)\n\nWhen multi-selecting multiple projects the menu entry gets disabled, would be nice if this would work also (tried with set of egit projects which all reside in same repository)',2332,'AAAL2n///K0='),(49,'2011-01-26 20:52:47','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nOK, I think that I misunderstood \"added\" as a \"added to git index\", maybe in the feature we can change this tooltip text into \"Show new files only\" or \"Show created files only\" to don\'t have such misunderstandings.',2332,'AAAL2n///K8='),(49,'2011-01-26 20:45:59','Patch Set 3:\n\nHow should work \"Show added files only\" button?\r\n\r\nI\'ve test it and it seams that when this option is enabled the content of left hand side column dissimilars even when I have some staged file inside the folder that I\'m comparing. But I don\'t see any useful case for this behavior.',2332,'AAAL2n///LA='),(46,'2011-01-26 20:23:58','Patch Set 3:\n\nNow checking for ignored.',2332,'AAAL2n///LM='),(46,'2011-01-26 20:20:55','Uploaded patch set 3.',2332,'AAAL2n///LQ='),(49,'2011-01-26 16:55:52','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nIt seams that this action include also ignored files in \"Git Tree Compare\" view, IMHO this shouldn\'t works this way.',2332,'AAAL2n///Nc='),(46,'2011-01-26 09:03:12','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed formatting issues',2332,'AAAL2n///Qg='),(46,'2011-01-26 09:02:21','Uploaded patch set 2.',2332,'AAAL2n///Qk='),(49,'2011-01-25 18:15:47','Patch Set 1: (6 inline comments)\n\nPlease review code comments',2332,'AAAL2n///Uo='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:28:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2333,'AAAL2n///Mo='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:28:01','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2333,'AAAL2n///Ms='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:27:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',2333,'AAAL2n///Mw='),(5,'2011-01-26 08:08:14','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2333,'AAAL2n///Qo='),(44,'2011-01-26 15:44:52','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2334,'AAAL2n///O8='),(44,'2011-01-26 16:15:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2334,'AAAL2n///OA='),(44,'2011-01-26 16:15:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased to current master\n- removed redundant toString',2334,'AAAL2n///OE='),(44,'2011-01-26 16:04:37','Uploaded patch set 2.',2334,'AAAL2n///OY='),(4,'2011-01-27 22:55:38','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2335,'AAAL2n///E0='),(4,'2011-01-27 22:54:42','Uploaded patch set 3.',2335,'AAAL2n///E4='),(4,'2011-01-27 22:55:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2335,'AAAL2n///Ew='),(44,'2011-01-27 12:06:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',2335,'AAAL2n///Ho='),(44,'2011-01-27 10:00:43','Patch Set 1:\n\nGood point. I checked it. It does not work because .git is not visible as resource when GitProjectData.markTeamPrivateResources is called.',2335,'AAAL2n///Hs='),(8,'2011-01-26 20:16:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhy doesn\'t the code we have for this already work?',2335,'AAAL2n///LU='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:49:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2336,'AAAL2n///Ng='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:49:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2336,'AAAL2n///Nk='),(2,'2011-01-27 04:05:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2337,'AAAL2n///Io='),(2,'2011-01-27 04:05:16','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nSeems reasonable!',2337,'AAAL2n///Is='),(2,'2011-01-27 04:04:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',2337,'AAAL2n///Iw='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:39:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2338,'AAAL2n///No='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:39:09','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2338,'AAAL2n///Ns='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:38:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',2338,'AAAL2n///Nw='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:33:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2339,'AAAL2n///N0='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:33:26','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2339,'AAAL2n///N4='),(4,'2011-01-26 16:32:40','Uploaded patch set 2.',2339,'AAAL2n///N8='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:05:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2340,'AAAL2n///NQ='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:05:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2340,'AAAL2n///NU='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:17:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2341,'AAAL2n///M8='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:17:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2341,'AAAL2n///NA='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:23:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2342,'AAAL2n///M0='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:23:26','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2342,'AAAL2n///M4='),(4,'2011-01-27 00:13:00','Patch Set 2:\n\nthis breaks the egit core test RebaseOperationTest.testStopAndAbortOnConflict(), please fix that test\n\nRerun org.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.RebaseOperationTest.testStopAndAbortOnConflict\ntestStopAndAbortOnConflict(org.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.RebaseOperationTest)\norg.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: Checkout conflict with file: Cannot delete file: .metadata\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.op.RebaseOperation$1.run(RebaseOperation.java:106)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.Workspace.run(Workspace.java:1975)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.Workspace.run(Workspace.java:1957)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.op.RebaseOperation.execute(RebaseOperation.java:112)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.test.op.RebaseOperationTest.testStopAndAbortOnConflict(RebaseOperationTest.java:182)\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.api.errors.JGitInternalException: Checkout conflict with file: Cannot delete file: .metadata\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.api.RebaseCommand.call(RebaseCommand.java:200)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.op.RebaseOperation$1.run(RebaseOperation.java:99)\n	... 47 more\nCaused by: org.eclipse.jgit.errors.CheckoutConflictException: Checkout conflict with file: Cannot delete file: .metadata\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.dircache.DirCacheCheckout.cleanUpConflicts(DirCacheCheckout.java:805)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.dircache.DirCacheCheckout.checkout(DirCacheCheckout.java:398)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.api.RebaseCommand.abort(RebaseCommand.java:602)\n	at org.eclipse.jgit.api.RebaseCommand.call(RebaseCommand.java:198)\n	... 48 more',2343,'AAAL2n///I0='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:42:24','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2343,'AAAL2n///L8='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:42:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2343,'AAAL2n///MA='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:42:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',2343,'AAAL2n///ME='),(NULL,'2011-01-26 17:41:16','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',2343,'AAAL2n///MI='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:41:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nGood catch, looks good.',2343,'AAAL2n///MM='),(4,'2011-01-26 22:16:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2344,'AAAL2n///Ko='),(4,'2011-01-26 22:16:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2344,'AAAL2n///Ks='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:39:48','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2345,'AAAL2n///MQ='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:39:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2345,'AAAL2n///MU='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:39:30','Uploaded patch set 2.',2345,'AAAL2n///MY='),(1,'2011-01-27 16:49:01','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2346,'AAAL2n///Gg='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:05:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2346,'AAAL2n///NI='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:05:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nYes, should of caught this with the first changeset.\n\nThanks!',2346,'AAAL2n///NM='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:52:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2347,'AAAL2n//+1g='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:52:05','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2347,'AAAL2n//+1k='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:51:33','Uploaded patch set 2.',2347,'AAAL2n//+1o='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:34:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2348,'AAAL2n///Mc='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:34:23','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2348,'AAAL2n///Mg='),(2,'2011-01-26 17:34:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',2348,'AAAL2n///Mk='),(2,'2011-01-28 14:17:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2349,'AAAL2n///CU='),(2,'2011-01-28 14:17:41','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good!',2349,'AAAL2n///CY='),(49,'2011-01-28 07:08:57','Patch Set 2:\n\nRebased',2349,'AAAL2n///DE='),(49,'2011-01-28 07:08:41','Uploaded patch set 2.',2349,'AAAL2n///DI='),(2,'2011-01-28 02:03:28','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',2349,'AAAL2n///DU='),(2,'2011-01-28 02:03:21','Patch Set 1:\n\nCan you rebase?',2349,'AAAL2n///DY='),(2,'2011-01-26 19:06:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2350,'AAAL2n///Lk='),(2,'2011-01-26 19:06:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThanks :)',2350,'AAAL2n///Lo='),(46,'2011-01-26 19:03:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',2350,'AAAL2n///Ls='),(2,'2011-01-26 18:57:18','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks good, just want a bit more documentation.',2350,'AAAL2n///Lw='),(2,'2011-01-26 19:53:42','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2351,'AAAL2n///Lc='),(2,'2011-01-26 19:53:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',2351,'AAAL2n///Lg='),(2,'2011-01-26 19:53:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2351,'AAAL2n///LY='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:54:00','Uploaded patch set 2.',2352,'AAAL2n//+1c='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:58:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2352,'AAAL2n//+1U='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:58:51','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks Mathias.',2352,'AAAL2n//+1Y='),(5,'2011-01-27 16:38:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2353,'AAAL2n///G4='),(5,'2011-01-27 16:38:27','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2353,'AAAL2n///G8='),(116,'2011-01-28 22:02:13','Patch Set 3:\n\nDariusz, you\'re right, the patch doesn\'t solve all problems, but compare editor for non-workspace files is a bit different story. The bug report was that we can\'t use Sync View at all (it\'s always empty). And with patch we can compare files those are inside of project (I think most common usecase). I will go on working to fix compare for non-workspace files, this is ofcorse also important, but can it be a different patch? We want to start using EGit in production and this fix is critical.',2354,'AAAL2n///AA='),(116,'2011-01-28 21:42:32','Uploaded patch set 3.',2354,'AAAL2n///AE='),(49,'2011-01-28 18:41:53','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\nPlease see inline comment',2354,'AAAL2n///Ak='),(49,'2011-01-28 18:31:26','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nSame as before, changes in non-workspace files cannot be viewed but such files appears in sync-view.',2354,'AAAL2n///As='),(116,'2011-01-28 12:02:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',2354,'AAAL2n///C4='),(49,'2011-01-27 19:45:31','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nFirst of all, information about bug number that particular change should fix we put above Change-Id (see for example this commit http://egit.eclipse.org/w/?p=egit.git;a=commitdiff;h=15e0da03955f554d642d2afee779a09ed3d376bb).\r\n\r\nSecondly, we use first line of commit for providing a short topic about what this change does (by convention it should have less than 60 character), then we insert a blank line and after that we put some more detailed description about commit message (80 characters in line).\r\n\r\nNon-workspace files appears in sync-view but you cannot see what was changed because the compare view cannot be launched for it. This isn\'t a full functionality that we would like to have.',2354,'AAAL2n///Fs='),(49,'2011-01-29 21:21:25','Patch Set 3:\n\nI\'ve create a separate change Id9a61b875d5302ed93587b4865f2d5dd78959181 for showing compare editor for non-workspace files.\r\n\r\nCould you please rebase this change and push rebased version?',2354,'AAAL2n//+/c='),(49,'2011-01-30 11:56:08','Patch Set 3:\n\nRebase this change on top of current master.\r\n\r\nI\'m afraid that we could have some issues connected with non-workspace resources.',2354,'AAAL2n//++0='),(116,'2011-01-30 11:31:57','Patch Set 3:\n\nDariusz, I\'m a bit confused: which change set should be rebased on top of which? :) Seems my revision is now parent of yours. Or you want them to be completely separate - based on master?',2354,'AAAL2n//++8='),(49,'2011-01-30 15:10:59','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nThe issues I discovered during testing this change are not connected with it. I\'ve already pushed an patch (http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,2374) that should fix errors that I spotted.',2354,'AAAL2n//++o='),(49,'2011-01-30 13:12:58','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nAs I expected, I got an StackOverflowException or IllegalArgumentException from Path constructor. Until this issues would be fixed I would prefer not to merging this change.',2354,'AAAL2n//++s='),(116,'2011-01-30 12:33:22','Uploaded patch set 4.',2354,'AAAL2n//++w='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:14:07','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2354,'AAAL2n//+9c='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:13:49','Uploaded patch set 5.',2354,'AAAL2n//+9g='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:14:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2354,'AAAL2n//+9Y='),(49,'2011-02-01 16:45:31','Patch Set 2:\n\nrebased, fixed typos and ui tests, improved code style.',2355,'AAAL2n//+1A='),(49,'2011-02-01 16:44:53','Uploaded patch set 2.',2355,'AAAL2n//+1E='),(49,'2011-02-01 16:38:19','Patch Set 1: (2 inline comments)\n\ngit-tag command doesn\'t distinguish tags on \'local\' and \'remote\', we also can\'t it distinguish from Repository.getAllRefs().keySet() because each tags starts with \'ref/tags\'. If you would like, we can change labels to \'Source point\' and \'Destination point\' instead of \'Source Repository\' and \'Destination Repository\'.',2355,'AAAL2n//+1I='),(4,'2011-01-31 22:50:59','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; Build Failed\n\n(2 inline comments)\n\nshowing \"tags\" in the combo named \"Destination Repository\" seems wrong to me. There could be tags in both the <local repository> and \"origin\".\n\nAlso some ui tests are failing:\n\n\norg.eclipse.egit.ui--All tests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.AllTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.AllLocalTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.view.synchronize.SynchronizeViewTest\nshouldCompareBranchAgainstTag(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.synchronize.SynchronizeViewTest)\njava.lang.RuntimeException: Item `v0.0\' not found in combo box.\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotCombo._setSelection(SWTBotCombo.java:110)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotCombo.setSelection(SWTBotCombo.java:92)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.synchronize.SynchronizeViewTest.shouldCompareBranchAgainstTag(SynchronizeViewTest.java:122)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.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:680)\n\nshouldCompareTagAgainstTag(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.synchronize.SynchronizeViewTest)\njava.lang.RuntimeException: Item `v0.1\' not found in combo box.\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotCombo._setSelection(SWTBotCombo.java:110)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotCombo.setSelection(SWTBotCombo.java:92)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.synchronize.SynchronizeViewTest.shouldCompareTagAgainstTag(SynchronizeViewTest.java:161)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.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:680)',2355,'AAAL2n//+5E='),(4,'2011-02-03 22:41:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',2355,'AAAL2n//+q0='),(4,'2011-02-03 22:42:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2355,'AAAL2n//+qs='),(4,'2011-02-03 22:42:24','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- improved labels in synchronize dialog',2355,'AAAL2n//+qw='),(2,'2011-02-16 17:34:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2356,'AAAL23///nc='),(2,'2011-02-16 17:34:46','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nCQ 4868 is approved and we can ship this now.\n\nThanks guys!',2356,'AAAL23///ng='),(2,'2011-02-16 17:33:06','Uploaded patch set 6.',2356,'AAAL23///nk='),(49,'2011-01-27 19:48:51','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nTo be honest I would prefer to have only commit message in change set label, therefore in my opinion this should be configured somewhere (eg. egit preferences) same as date formatting.',2356,'AAAL2n///Fk='),(116,'2011-02-02 17:22:56','Patch Set 2:\n\nNow they are configurable :)',2356,'AAAL2n//+w0='),(116,'2011-02-02 17:19:15','Uploaded patch set 2.',2356,'AAAL2n//+w4='),(49,'2011-02-02 18:49:53','Uploaded patch set 4.',2356,'AAAL2n//+wc='),(49,'2011-02-02 18:43:34','Patch Set 3:\n\nWe\'ll need an CQ for this contribution since it has more than 200 lines.',2356,'AAAL2n//+wg='),(49,'2011-02-02 18:42:52','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nRebased, fixed failing ui tests added small improvement for code style',2356,'AAAL2n//+wk='),(49,'2011-02-02 18:37:29','Uploaded patch set 3.',2356,'AAAL2n//+wo='),(2,'2011-02-02 19:44:53','Patch Set 5: Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nwaiting on CQ 4868',2356,'AAAL2n//+wQ='),(2,'2011-02-02 19:44:28','Uploaded patch set 5.',2356,'AAAL2n//+wU='),(49,'2011-02-02 18:50:29','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nsic! I forgot to include SynchronizeViewTest file :|',2356,'AAAL2n//+wY='),(2,'2011-01-27 19:17:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2357,'AAAL2n///GM='),(2,'2011-01-27 19:17:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nSeems fine.',2357,'AAAL2n///GQ='),(2,'2011-01-27 19:18:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2358,'AAAL2n///GE='),(2,'2011-01-27 19:18:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nOk.',2358,'AAAL2n///GI='),(2,'2011-01-27 19:24:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2359,'AAAL2n///F8='),(2,'2011-01-27 19:24:38','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2359,'AAAL2n///GA='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:52:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2360,'AAAL2n//+8Q='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:52:36','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThis was working for me locally and we should get it into master so everyone can test.',2360,'AAAL2n//+8U='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:46:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',2360,'AAAL2n//+8Y='),(2,'2011-01-28 17:45:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2361,'AAAL2n///A8='),(2,'2011-01-28 17:45:39','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2361,'AAAL2n///BA='),(1,'2011-01-28 16:18:07','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2361,'AAAL2n///BM='),(1,'2011-01-28 16:17:46','Uploaded patch set 2.',2361,'AAAL2n///BQ='),(1,'2011-01-28 15:20:21','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nLacks unit test.',2361,'AAAL2n///CI='),(1,'2011-01-28 15:48:01','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nThere are already better ways to do improve PackWriter.',2362,'AAAL2n///Bc='),(1,'2011-01-28 06:27:45','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\nI already regret the predecessor patch that created ObjectListIterator.\n\nI have an even better strategy in mind.  I\'ll probably post a revert to back out ObjectListIterator and propose a different implementation.  But my new idea is too simple so I think I\'ll try it first in C Git and see what the C Git contributors have to say there.',2362,'AAAL2n///DQ='),(1,'2011-01-28 14:26:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2363,'AAAL2n///CM='),(1,'2011-01-28 14:26:41','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2363,'AAAL2n///CQ='),(2,'2011-01-28 15:38:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2364,'AAAL2n///Bg='),(2,'2011-01-28 15:38:26','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2364,'AAAL2n///Bk='),(46,'2011-01-28 12:49:36','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nFound a problem.',2364,'AAAL2n///C0='),(46,'2011-01-28 14:03:21','Uploaded patch set 3.',2364,'AAAL2n///Cg='),(46,'2011-01-28 12:59:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',2364,'AAAL2n///Co='),(2,'2011-01-28 15:52:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2365,'AAAL2n///BU='),(2,'2011-01-28 15:52:38','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2365,'AAAL2n///BY='),(46,'2011-01-28 14:05:12','Uploaded patch set 4.',2365,'AAAL2n///Cc='),(46,'2011-01-28 13:55:26','Uploaded patch set 3.',2365,'AAAL2n///Ck='),(46,'2011-01-28 12:59:19','Uploaded patch set 2.',2365,'AAAL2n///Cs='),(46,'2011-01-28 12:50:02','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nFound a problem.',2365,'AAAL2n///Cw='),(1,'2011-01-28 15:21:21','Patch Set 1: Abandoned',2366,'AAAL2n///CE='),(2,'2011-01-28 15:32:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2367,'AAAL2n///Bo='),(2,'2011-01-28 15:32:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nSounds good!',2367,'AAAL2n///Bs='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:31:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2368,'AAAL2n//+84='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:31:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2368,'AAAL2n//+88='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:45:25','Patch Set 2:\n\nI\'ll revert the change and add a note.\n\nThat\'s a bit esoteric.',2368,'AAAL2n//+8c='),(4,'2011-01-31 15:42:30','Patch Set 2:\n\nI think this is plain wrong, citing a private mail from Shawn:\n\n\n2010/5/29 Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>:\n> Matthias Sohn <matthias.sohn@googlemail.com> wrote:\n>> 2010/5/29 Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>\n>> >\n>> > Yea, I found that bug myself today, and fixed it.  So I closed\n>> > 314964.  Sorry you spent time on a bug, thinking its user error.\n>> >\n>>\n>> no problem\n>>\n>> I think the review URL you added in\n>> http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#patch,unified,770,1,.eclipse_iplog\n>> <http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#patch,unified,770,1,.eclipse_iplog>has an extra\n>> trailing r/ :\n>>     http://egit.eclipse.org/r/r/\n>> which should be removed.\n>\n> Nope, its correct.  It looks funny, yes, but its correct.\n>\n> The first /r/ tells our Apache to redirect the request to Gerrit.\n>\n> The second /r/ tells Gerrit that the thing following is a Git\n> SHA-1 and it should try to locate the change(s) that use that\n> commit object.\n>\n> Nothing I can easily do about it now.  The second /r/ is historical\n> and comes from Gerrit 1.x days.  The first /r/ was a foolish\n> mistake when I setup the egit.eclipse.org Apache configuration.\n> Its modeled after how I set it up within Google... so I\'ve made\n> that stupid mistake twice now.  Yay.\n>\n> --\n> Shawn.',2368,'AAAL2n//+8k='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:31:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',2368,'AAAL2n//+9A='),(4,'2011-01-31 15:44:36','Patch Set 2:\n\nthis is wrong, see my comment on change I33e64c99',2369,'AAAL2n//+8g='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:42:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2369,'AAAL2n//+8o='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:42:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks for the catch.',2369,'AAAL2n//+8s='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:41:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',2369,'AAAL2n//+8w='),(2,'2011-01-28 17:52:29','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2370,'AAAL2n///A0='),(2,'2011-01-28 17:52:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nOk.',2370,'AAAL2n///A4='),(2,'2011-01-28 20:07:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2371,'AAAL2n///AI='),(2,'2011-01-28 20:07:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good to me now.\n\nNext time, make the commit message kind of look like what I did. I hope you can contribute more in the future :)',2371,'AAAL2n///AM='),(2,'2011-01-28 20:06:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',2371,'AAAL2n///AQ='),(2,'2011-01-28 17:36:29','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks good but can you please return \'this\' in the setter?\n\nAlso, in your commit message, please add \n\n\'Change-Id: Id9713a4849c772e030fca23dd64b993264f28366\'\n\nSo when you amend your commit, Gerrit knows that it\'s this changeset to append the change too. It\'s in our contributor guide :)',2371,'AAAL2n///BE='),(4,'2011-01-29 00:18:53','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nLooks much better than the previous one with two trees :-)\n\nFound the following problems:\n- can\'t open compare editor on deleted files (works on added and modified files)\n\nthese features would be nice to add in future changes:\n-could we add the following toggle filters: \"show added\", \"show deleted\", \"show modified\"\n- would be nice to use navigation buttons (up, down arrow) for jumping from one file to the next (can this be done with arrow keys on the keyboard?)\n- would be nice to have a way to expand a subnode recursively so that I don\'t have to click 10 times for a 10 level deep hierarchy.',2372,'AAAL2n//+/8='),(46,'2011-01-31 08:40:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',2372,'AAAL2n//++A='),(2,'2011-02-01 17:24:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2372,'AAAL2n//+00='),(2,'2011-02-01 17:24:26','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThis is awesome, thanks Mathias!',2372,'AAAL2n//+04='),(2,'2011-02-01 17:23:20','Uploaded patch set 4.',2372,'AAAL2n//+08='),(46,'2011-02-01 07:07:38','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2372,'AAAL2n//+30='),(46,'2011-02-01 07:06:44','Patch Set 2: (11 inline comments)\n\n',2372,'AAAL2n//+38='),(46,'2011-02-01 06:58:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',2372,'AAAL2n//+4E='),(4,'2011-01-31 21:30:17','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(12 inline comments)\n\n',2372,'AAAL2n//+6M='),(46,'2011-01-31 08:41:58','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed issues with opening compare editor on deleted file and another issue which resuls in \"Reentrant call ignored\" warnings in the error log.',2372,'AAAL2n//+98='),(49,'2011-01-29 12:41:50','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\n',2373,'AAAL2n//+/4='),(49,'2011-01-29 21:18:24','Patch Set 2: No score\n\nNow this should work ;)',2373,'AAAL2n//+/g='),(49,'2011-01-29 21:17:54','Uploaded patch set 2.',2373,'AAAL2n//+/k='),(49,'2011-01-29 20:52:04','Patch Set 1:\n\nThank you James for hints, I think that I\'ve found solution for this problem ;>',2373,'AAAL2n//+/o='),(115,'2011-01-29 20:17:58','Patch Set 1:\n\nHi Dariusz,\nI don\'t know much about the synchronize API.  You can use IContainer getFile / getFolder to get IFile\'s for non-existent resources (but what does this mean in the context of a compare?).  get*ForLocation does a translation, only if the resource exists...  If the resource really doesn\'t exist on the left, perhaps you can return null?\n\nAs an aside the key thing is what the synchronize view is trying to do.  I guess you\'re trying to synchronize just IResources visible under the workspace model?  The alternative is to synchronize all filesystem changes between the two refs. \nFor example CVS does the former, while clearcase does the latter.  In some sense git is more like clearcase -- the location of the repository root doesn\'t necessarily correspond with the location of the project or workspace root, and the local repo may contain many resources not all within eclipse.\nI think I noticed that synchronizing one project included other projects in the same repo -- so it seems that the synch. action is somewhere between the two? \n\nIf you\'re just trying to synchronize workspace IResources, then you do also need to be careful to handle groups (virtual folders) and linked resources.  Try creating a new file/folder, press advanced and link to another resource in the filesystem.\n\nSorry I can\'t give your better advice.\nCheers,\nJames',2373,'AAAL2n//+/s='),(49,'2011-01-29 12:49:50','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\nIt is almost ready change. There is only one thing that should be fixed. The left hand side editor in compare view is always empty for non-workspace files that wasn\'t staged already.\r\n\r\nI\'m testing it on egit project with changed master pom file. This file is listed in egit change set but when you launch compare editor for it the left hand side editor is empty.\r\n\r\nFrom my investigations appears that when we create an IFile resource using IWorkspace.getFile() the exist() method called on this new instance will return false with seams to be a problem here, also getLocation() method returns null, please see inline comment in GitLocalCompareInput',2373,'AAAL2n//+/w='),(116,'2011-01-30 11:40:48','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nWorks for me :)',2373,'AAAL2n//++4='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:19:01','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2373,'AAAL2n//+9M='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:19:01','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThis works now.',2373,'AAAL2n//+9Q='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:17:37','Uploaded patch set 3.',2373,'AAAL2n//+9U='),(5,'2011-01-31 07:19:50','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n',2374,'AAAL2n//++E='),(49,'2011-01-30 15:19:44','Patch Set 2:\n\nFixed some typos in commit message',2374,'AAAL2n//++g='),(49,'2011-01-30 15:19:22','Uploaded patch set 2.',2374,'AAAL2n//++k='),(2,'2011-01-31 16:16:36','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2374,'AAAL2n//+70='),(2,'2011-01-31 16:13:37','Uploaded patch set 4.',2374,'AAAL2n//+74='),(2,'2011-01-31 16:16:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2374,'AAAL2n//+7w='),(49,'2011-01-31 09:01:02','Patch Set 2: (3 inline comments)\n\n',2374,'AAAL2n//+9o='),(49,'2011-01-31 09:00:47','Uploaded patch set 3.',2374,'AAAL2n//+9s='),(4,'2011-01-30 23:49:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2375,'AAAL2n//++c='),(4,'2011-01-30 23:49:06','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2375,'AAAL2n//++Y='),(2,'2011-01-31 16:02:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2376,'AAAL2n//+8I='),(2,'2011-01-31 16:02:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2376,'AAAL2n//+8M='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:22:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2377,'AAAL2n//+9E='),(2,'2011-01-31 15:22:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThis seems reasonable.',2377,'AAAL2n//+9I='),(2,'2011-01-31 17:26:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2378,'AAAL2n//+7c='),(2,'2011-01-31 17:26:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nMistakes are bad :)',2378,'AAAL2n//+7g='),(2,'2011-01-31 17:27:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2379,'AAAL2n//+7U='),(2,'2011-01-31 17:27:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nMistakes are bad :)',2379,'AAAL2n//+7Y='),(2,'2011-01-31 19:24:33','Patch Set 1:\n\nLooks good.',2380,'AAAL2n//+7I='),(2,'2011-01-31 19:24:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2380,'AAAL2n//+7M='),(2,'2011-01-31 19:24:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2380,'AAAL2n//+7Q='),(2,'2011-02-01 14:38:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2381,'AAAL2n//+28='),(2,'2011-02-01 14:38:30','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2381,'AAAL2n//+3A='),(2,'2011-02-01 14:40:58','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2382,'AAAL2n//+20='),(2,'2011-02-01 14:40:57','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2382,'AAAL2n//+24='),(2,'2011-02-01 14:56:18','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2383,'AAAL2n//+2g='),(2,'2011-02-01 14:56:18','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2383,'AAAL2n//+2k='),(2,'2011-02-01 14:56:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2383,'AAAL2n//+2o='),(NULL,'2011-02-01 14:42:07','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',2383,'AAAL2n//+2s='),(2,'2011-02-01 14:42:07','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2383,'AAAL2n//+2w='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:02:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2384,'AAAL2n//+2M='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:02:29','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2384,'AAAL2n//+2Q='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:02:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',2384,'AAAL2n//+2U='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:07:15','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2385,'AAAL2n//+2A='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:07:14','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2385,'AAAL2n//+2E='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:05:16','Uploaded patch set 2.',2385,'AAAL2n//+2I='),(1,'2011-02-12 03:06:51','Patch Set 2:\n\nI think this change breaks Gerrit Code Review when branch level permissions are used. IIRC, Gerrit uses ObjectWalk to enumerate the set of objects that would have been considered in the edge set for delta bases, but in this change I stripped that code out of ObjectWalk and moved it all into PackWriter. This prevents the client from using any file or tree as a delta base for a REF_DELTA, resulting in Gerrit rejecting the pack file.\n\nI guess I need to decide if I should restore this behavior to ObjectWalk, or put it into Gerrit itself. Its unlikely an application needs the UNINTERESTING tree and blob objects, so its not really worth having in the core JGit library, and especially not by default given how expensive this is to compute. So it seems reasonable to me to require the application to contain this logic itself... and thus I need to fix Gerrit when I upgrade Gerrit to use a JGit 0.11.1 or later.',2386,'AAAL23///1c='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:13:25','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2386,'AAAL2n//+10='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:13:24','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good!',2386,'AAAL2n//+14='),(2,'2011-02-01 15:12:24','Uploaded patch set 2.',2386,'AAAL2n//+18='),(2,'2011-02-03 20:52:38','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2387,'AAAL2n//+rc='),(2,'2011-02-03 20:52:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nYou know, not sure I like the approach of having the stats object accessible like that. I can\'t think of anything better so we\'ll just push it in.',2387,'AAAL2n//+rg='),(1,'2011-02-03 21:01:40','Patch Set 2:\n\nI do want the stats object exposed.  Longer term I want to get that exposed (with much more detail) up into the daemon layer, i.e. our Daemon or GitServlet object, and then use it to create a git-specific access log.\n\nOne of the things Git hosting sites don\'t know is what remote fetches cost.  We cannot tell a remote clone from a remote incremental fetch.  We cannot tell how out-of-date clients are when they fetch, or what it costs to bring them current.  The only way to know that data is to peek into the state of PackWriter.  This stats object is going to carry that data up to a higher level, allowing the daemon to log it in a way that makes sense for the daemon.\n\nI don\'t want PackWriter making its own log files, that\'s insanity.  But its the only part of the system that knows what the damn cost was, or what the details of the request were.',2387,'AAAL2n//+rY='),(1,'2011-02-03 20:08:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',2387,'AAAL2n//+sM='),(2,'2011-02-03 21:30:09','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2388,'AAAL2n//+q4='),(2,'2011-02-03 21:30:08','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2388,'AAAL2n//+q8='),(1,'2011-02-03 21:20:47','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\nOK, now we support alternates.  :-)',2388,'AAAL2n//+rA='),(1,'2011-02-03 21:20:30','Uploaded patch set 4.',2388,'AAAL2n//+rI='),(1,'2011-02-03 21:03:12','Patch Set 3: Do not submit\n\nActually lets hold off on this.  We should support cached packs from alternate repositories too.',2388,'AAAL2n//+rM='),(1,'2011-02-03 21:02:31','Uploaded patch set 3.',2388,'AAAL2n//+rQ='),(2,'2011-02-03 21:02:27','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2388,'AAAL2n//+rU='),(1,'2011-02-03 20:08:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',2388,'AAAL2n//+sQ='),(2,'2011-02-01 01:11:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2389,'AAAL2n//+44='),(2,'2011-02-01 01:11:20','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nPedantic but seems fine :)',2389,'AAAL2n//+48='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:15:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2390,'AAAL2n//+xs='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:15:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2390,'AAAL2n//+xw='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:54:46','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased',2390,'AAAL2n//+yU='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:54:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',2390,'AAAL2n//+yY='),(4,'2011-02-04 00:26:51','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nplease rebase and resolve conflicts',2391,'AAAL2n//+qA='),(2,'2011-02-01 19:48:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2392,'AAAL2n//+0c='),(2,'2011-02-01 19:48:26','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good, thanks.',2392,'AAAL2n//+0g='),(2,'2011-02-01 19:48:01','Uploaded patch set 2.',2392,'AAAL2n//+0k='),(NULL,'2011-02-01 19:47:29','Your change could not be merged due to a path conflict.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',2392,'AAAL2n//+0o='),(2,'2011-02-01 19:47:28','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nI like this change, +1',2392,'AAAL2n//+0s='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:10:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2393,'AAAL2n//+yk='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:10:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased',2393,'AAAL2n//+yw='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:07:11','Uploaded patch set 2.',2393,'AAAL2n//+zA='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:09:31','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- fixed style nits',2394,'AAAL2n//+y0='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:10:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2394,'AAAL2n//+yo='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:07:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',2394,'AAAL2n//+zE='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:06:56','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',2394,'AAAL2n//+zM='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:08:30','Patch Set 2:\n\n- rebased\n- fixed style nits',2395,'AAAL2n//+y4='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:08:12','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2395,'AAAL2n//+y8='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:10:12','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2395,'AAAL2n//+ys='),(4,'2011-02-02 00:07:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',2395,'AAAL2n//+zI='),(1,'2011-02-02 00:27:32','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2396,'AAAL2n//+yc='),(1,'2011-02-02 00:27:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2396,'AAAL2n//+yg='),(79,'2011-02-09 19:48:49','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nAbandoned until bug 336415 is sorted out.',2397,'AAAL23///4Q='),(79,'2011-02-05 10:00:17','Patch Set 2:\n\nI created https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=336415 for the repository configuration.\n\nShould I abandon this change for now?',2397,'AAAL2n//+oQ='),(4,'2011-02-04 09:11:14','Patch Set 2:\n\n+1, please open a bug to track this proposal',2397,'AAAL2n//+p0='),(46,'2011-02-04 07:31:15','Patch Set 2:\n\nI like Matthias\' idea. We could still add a context menu in the Repositories View to quickly open this preference page (without having to click Window > Preferenes > Team > Git > Configuration > Select Repository), but in general I think that this would be the right place to add this UI.\n\nIt shouldn\'t be a big deal to add this third tab to the Preferences page (something like \"Repository setting\" next to \"User setting\" and \"System setting\").\n\nUnfortnuately, we don\'t have any semantics on these pages (yet), so the next step may be to improve the dialog shown after clicking the \"New Entry...\" button with some help regarding keys and values to assist users with the task of setting configuration values.',2397,'AAAL2n//+p4='),(4,'2011-02-03 23:47:00','Patch Set 2:\n\nI think it should be similar to what we have under Preferences > Team > Git > Configuration for system-wide and user-wide configuration. We could just add another tab \"Repository\" on that preference page and add a combo for selecting the repository',2397,'AAAL2n//+qM='),(79,'2011-02-03 23:32:57','Patch Set 2:\n\nI agree, it\'s not quite right in the project properties.\n\nAre you thinking about a property page dialog which can be opened from the Git Repositories view? CVS has this, it can be opened via the context menu of a repository or using File -> Properties.',2397,'AAAL2n//+qQ='),(79,'2011-02-02 22:37:48','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2397,'AAAL2n//+v0='),(79,'2011-02-02 22:37:37','Patch Set 2:\n\nChanges to the previous patch set:\n\n- Mention key in commit message.\n- Add a group in the Git property page for the repository configuration and fix spacing.\n- Don\'t append Change-Id when manually deleting it from the commit message.',2397,'AAAL2n//+v4='),(46,'2011-02-03 07:28:50','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI wonder if we shouldn\'t put things where they belong: if this is a repository configuration, we should show it there (and let it be changed there, too).\nUnfortunately, the UI support for the repository configuration is currently very limited (it\'s shown as Property page when a Repository is selected in the Repositories View), but we will need more of this kind of configuration soon (autosetupmerge and autosetuprebase come to my mind, for example), so  I think we should look into this direction (e.g. some sort of \"Repository configuration\" dialog).\nI don\'t think Eclipse users would ever understand that they have to open a Project property page to find a property that is not stored in the project meta data.\nFurthermore, going the configuration approach, we could also tell users to add this flag to the user-specific configuration so that they don\'t have to bother with configuring each repository one by one.',2397,'AAAL2n//+vw='),(79,'2011-02-02 22:34:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',2397,'AAAL2n//+wA='),(1,'2011-02-02 06:55:08','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2397,'AAAL2n//+yI='),(2,'2011-02-02 01:19:25','Patch Set 1:\n\nThis is an interesting approach. I actually like it but not sure if this is the kosher way of handling things. It\'s better than an Eclipse preference imho too :)',2397,'AAAL2n//+yQ='),(2,'2011-02-03 15:13:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2398,'AAAL2n//+to='),(2,'2011-02-03 15:13:22','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good now.',2398,'AAAL2n//+ts='),(46,'2011-02-03 14:21:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',2398,'AAAL2n//+uY='),(2,'2011-02-03 15:13:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2399,'AAAL2n//+tg='),(2,'2011-02-03 15:13:36','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2399,'AAAL2n//+tk='),(46,'2011-02-03 14:21:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',2399,'AAAL2n//+uc='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:14:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2400,'AAAL2n//+x0='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:14:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2400,'AAAL2n//+x4='),(46,'2011-02-02 13:46:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',2401,'AAAL2n//+x8='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:26:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2401,'AAAL2n//+xE='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:26:52','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2401,'AAAL2n//+xI='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:26:34','Uploaded patch set 3.',2401,'AAAL2n//+xM='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:22:23','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2402,'AAAL2n//+xc='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:22:22','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good to me.',2402,'AAAL2n//+xg='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:18:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2403,'AAAL2n//+xk='),(2,'2011-02-02 15:18:31','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2403,'AAAL2n//+xo='),(2,'2011-02-02 20:47:43','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2404,'AAAL2n//+wE='),(2,'2011-02-02 20:47:43','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks ok.',2404,'AAAL2n//+wI='),(2,'2011-02-03 14:20:45','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2405,'AAAL2n//+uk='),(2,'2011-02-03 14:20:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2405,'AAAL2n//+uo='),(2,'2011-02-03 15:09:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2406,'AAAL2n//+t4='),(2,'2011-02-03 15:09:41','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good now :)',2406,'AAAL2n//+t8='),(46,'2011-02-03 14:37:53','Patch Set 2:\n\nNow with NotIgnoredFilter. Thanks Chris.',2406,'AAAL2n//+uI='),(46,'2011-02-03 14:37:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',2406,'AAAL2n//+uM='),(2,'2011-02-03 14:19:34','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nIs there a reason we can\'t just do a NotIgnoredFilter on the tree walk?',2406,'AAAL2n//+us='),(49,'2011-02-03 20:40:27','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nRebased',2407,'AAAL2n//+r0='),(49,'2011-02-03 20:40:06','Uploaded patch set 6.',2407,'AAAL2n//+r4='),(NULL,'2011-02-03 20:39:05','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.',2407,'AAAL2n//+r8='),(49,'2011-02-03 20:41:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2407,'AAAL2n//+rs='),(49,'2011-02-03 20:41:06','Patch Set 6:\n\nRebased',2407,'AAAL2n//+rw='),(49,'2011-02-03 20:38:59','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2407,'AAAL2n//+sA='),(49,'2011-02-03 19:12:41','Uploaded patch set 4.',2407,'AAAL2n//+sc='),(49,'2011-02-03 20:38:11','Uploaded patch set 5.',2407,'AAAL2n//+sE='),(49,'2011-02-03 19:02:21','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; Unclean IP, do not check in\n\nWe\'ll need an CQ for this change.',2407,'AAAL2n//+sg='),(49,'2011-02-03 20:37:08','Patch Set 4:\n\nI don\'t know why I was thinking that there is 200 line limitation limitation. I\'ll withdraw CQ.',2407,'AAAL2n//+sI='),(116,'2011-02-03 18:39:48','Patch Set 3:\n\ngitk shows them always, but I think you\'re right :) I\'ve fixed this',2407,'AAAL2n//+sk='),(116,'2011-02-03 18:33:43','Uploaded patch set 3.',2407,'AAAL2n//+so='),(49,'2011-02-03 17:42:28','Patch Set 2:\n\nIlya, what do you think about not showing \"Tags:\", \"Follows:\" and \"Precedes:\" if those variables doesn\'t contains data? TBH I didn\'t use gitk therefore I don\'t know how it works, but for me it looks quite strange when there are variables without any data.',2407,'AAAL2n//+ss='),(2,'2011-02-03 19:47:33','Patch Set 4:\n\nThe change is less than 250 lines so we don\'t need a CQ',2407,'AAAL2n//+sU='),(49,'2011-02-03 19:13:03','Patch Set 4: Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n',2407,'AAAL2n//+sY='),(116,'2011-02-03 16:13:25','Patch Set 2:\n\nThis should be better',2407,'AAAL2n//+tI='),(116,'2011-02-03 16:12:49','Uploaded patch set 2.',2407,'AAAL2n//+tM='),(49,'2011-02-03 14:19:28','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(14 inline comments)\n\n',2407,'AAAL2n//+uw='),(2,'2011-02-03 16:21:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2408,'AAAL2n//+s8='),(2,'2011-02-03 16:21:55','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nReally nice work Matthias.',2408,'AAAL2n//+tA='),(2,'2011-02-03 16:21:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',2408,'AAAL2n//+tE='),(2,'2011-02-04 00:29:39','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nMatthias fixed it.',2409,'AAAL2n//+p8='),(2,'2011-02-03 15:38:40','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nthis already happens implicitly via bot.shell(...) ... it\'s something else...',2409,'AAAL2n//+tc='),(2,'2011-02-03 20:42:10','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2410,'AAAL2n//+rk='),(2,'2011-02-03 20:42:09','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2410,'AAAL2n//+ro='),(1,'2011-02-06 00:41:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',2411,'AAAL23////o='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:20:27','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2411,'AAAL23///zo='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:20:26','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2411,'AAAL23///zs='),(1,'2011-02-03 21:20:32','Uploaded patch set 2.',2411,'AAAL2n//+rE='),(49,'2011-02-04 00:21:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2412,'AAAL2n//+qE='),(49,'2011-02-04 00:21:13','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2412,'AAAL2n//+qI='),(46,'2011-02-04 11:50:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2413,'AAAL2n//+pk='),(46,'2011-02-04 11:50:50','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2413,'AAAL2n//+po='),(46,'2011-02-04 10:33:14','Patch Set 1:\n\nMatthias, can we check this in or do we need a new change from a committer?',2413,'AAAL2n//+pw='),(2,'2011-02-04 16:35:48','Patch Set 3:\n\nCan this go into stable-0.11?',2414,'AAAL2n//+o8='),(4,'2011-02-04 22:01:02','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- replaced by change Ib5e7768a for stable-0.11\n- will merge this back to master from stable-0.11 later',2414,'AAAL2n//+os='),(4,'2011-02-05 09:15:32','Patch Set 3: Abandoned\n\nreplaced by change Ib5e7768a',2414,'AAAL2n//+oY='),(4,'2011-02-04 13:39:36','Patch Set 2: Build Failed\n\nthis change breaks some ui tests\n\n\norg.eclipse.egit.ui--All tests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.AllTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.AllLocalTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.AllRepositoriesViewTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest\ntestCreateCheckoutDeleteLocalBranch(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest)\njava.lang.AssertionError: Wrong number of children expected:<2> but was:<1>\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.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest.testCreateCheckoutDeleteLocalBranch(GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest.java:122)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)\n\ntestCreateDeleteLocalBranchWithUnmerged(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest)\njava.lang.AssertionError: Wrong number of children expected:<2> but was:<1>\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.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest.testCreateDeleteLocalBranchWithUnmerged(GitRepositoriesViewBranchHandlingTest.java:191)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)\n\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest\ntestDeleteSingleBranch(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find node with text: abc\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotTreeItem.getNodes(SWTBotTreeItem.java:330)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotTreeItem.getNode(SWTBotTreeItem.java:305)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.SWTBotTreeItem.getNode(SWTBotTreeItem.java:342)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest.testDeleteSingleBranch(GitRepositoriesViewTest.java:546)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)\n\ntestDeleteMultipleBranches(org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest)\norg.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.exceptions.WidgetNotFoundException: Could not find menu: [Create Branch...]\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.ContextMenuHelper.clickContextMenu(ContextMenuHelper.java:66)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.view.repositories.GitRepositoriesViewTest.testDeleteMultipleBranches(GitRepositoriesViewTest.java:576)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)\n\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.AllTeamActionTests\norg.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest\ntestRenameBranch(org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest)\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.tree(SWTBot.java:1106)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBot.tree(SWTBot.java:1095)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest.testRenameBranch(BranchAndResetActionTest.java:364)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 5000 ms.: Could not find widget matching: (of type \'Tree\')\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	... 58 more\n\ntestCreateBranch(org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest)\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.tree(SWTBot.java:1106)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.SWTBot.tree(SWTBot.java:1095)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.test.team.actions.BranchAndResetActionTest.testCreateBranch(BranchAndResetActionTest.java:318)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)\n	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)\n	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)\n	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:44)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:15)\n	at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:41)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:20)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:76)\n	at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:50)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:28)\n	at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:31)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.junit.SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.run(SWTBotJunit4ClassRunner.java:54)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)\n	at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:24)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:193)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:52)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:191)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:42)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:184)\n	at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:236)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:49)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683)\n	at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.RemotePluginTestRunner.main(RemotePluginTestRunner.java:64)\n	at org.eclipse.swtbot.eclipse.core.UITestApplication.runTests(UITestApplication.java:117)\n	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.testing.WorkbenchTestable$1.run(WorkbenchTestable.java:71)\n	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680)\nCaused by: org.eclipse.swtbot.swt.finder.widgets.TimeoutException: Timeout after: 5000 ms.: Could not find widget matching: (of type \'Tree\')\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	... 58 more',2414,'AAAL2n//+pc='),(46,'2011-02-04 11:48:26','Uploaded patch set 2.',2414,'AAAL2n//+ps='),(46,'2011-02-04 14:32:07','Uploaded patch set 3.',2414,'AAAL2n//+pY='),(46,'2011-02-07 07:13:10','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(5 inline comments)\n\n',2415,'AAAL23///98='),(116,'2011-02-07 15:27:09','Uploaded patch set 2.',2415,'AAAL23///9o='),(116,'2011-02-18 11:57:36','Patch Set 3:\n\nFound the problem! it was a wrong file length in index',2415,'AAAL23///gY='),(116,'2011-02-17 17:31:01','Patch Set 3:\n\nMatthias,\nFor the approach you described, I think the \'Relpace with HEAD\' is not a correct description. In first case there\'s even no content in HEAD.\nWhat do you think about calling the action for example \'Checkout resources\' and putting into Team menu?\n\nI have implemented clearing staged version, but after that file appears with \'>\' sign, however file content is exactly same as in HEAD. Could you give me some hint of how to fix it? Seems I need some refresh statement...',2415,'AAAL23///jo='),(4,'2011-02-16 23:45:45','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(11 inline comments)\n\nfound that \"Replace with HEAD\" doesn\'t properly handle the staged content:\n- \"Replace with HEAD\" on a new file which has been added and afterwards changed again (file content in HEAD doesn\'t exist, staged content and working tree content are different) has no effect but c git\'s \"git checkout -- <path>\" will replace the working tree content with index content in that case\n- \"Replace with HEAD\" on a tracked file which has staged changes and also more changes in the working tree replaces the working tree with the version from HEAD but doesn\'t replace the index with the version from HEAD (check this with \"Compare with Index\", Compare with HEAD\"), c git\'s \"git checkout -- <path>\" also replaces the index with the HEAD version',2415,'AAAL23///lc='),(4,'2011-02-16 23:47:29','Patch Set 3:\n\nalso tests are missing here',2415,'AAAL23///lY='),(116,'2011-02-16 13:54:31','Patch Set 3:\n\n@Mathias: You\'re right. NPE is fixed now.',2415,'AAAL23///oU='),(116,'2011-02-16 13:50:46','Uploaded patch set 3.',2415,'AAAL23///oY='),(46,'2011-02-15 15:59:37','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI did this for a project that was shared but had some untracked files (.classpath was the actual offender here) and got the Exception below (the TreeWalk is null as the file under the path is not tracked).\n\njava.lang.NullPointerException\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.op.ReplaceFromHEADOperation.discardChange(ReplaceFromHEADOperation.java:52)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.op.DiscardChangesOperation.discardChanges(DiscardChangesOperation.java:114)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.op.DiscardChangesOperation.access$0(DiscardChangesOperation.java:98)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.op.DiscardChangesOperation$1.run(DiscardChangesOperation.java:91)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.Workspace.run(Workspace.java:1800)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.core.op.DiscardChangesOperation.execute(DiscardChangesOperation.java:94)\n	at org.eclipse.egit.ui.internal.actions.DiscardChangesActionHandler$1.run(DiscardChangesActionHandler.java:85)\n	at org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run(Worker.java:55)',2415,'AAAL23///sQ='),(2,'2011-03-01 16:10:27','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI agree with Matthias\' suggestions. Please update with a new changeset.\n\nI also refactored a couple classes out and collapsed things into DiscardChangesOperation.\n\nI would also request that you do the tests in another gerrit changeset so we can avoid triggering the IP process for this.',2415,'AAAL3H///14='),(2,'2011-03-01 16:08:49','Uploaded patch set 6.',2415,'AAAL3H///18='),(116,'2011-03-01 13:30:59','Uploaded patch set 4.',2415,'AAAL3H///20='),(4,'2011-03-01 16:01:49','Patch Set 5: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(4 inline comments)\n\n- some minor issues\n- could you add a egit.core test for ReplaceWithHeadOperation ?',2415,'AAAL3H///2A='),(2,'2011-03-01 15:39:07','Uploaded patch set 5.',2415,'AAAL3H///2c='),(2,'2011-02-28 23:32:27','Patch Set 3:\n\nCan you rebase this patch Ilya?\n\nI want to get it in for 0.12',2415,'AAAL3H///4k='),(5,'2011-03-02 16:53:43','Patch Set 6: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2415,'AAAL3H///xg='),(2,'2011-03-21 00:00:03','Patch Set 6:\n\nIs there an update this?',2415,'AAAL3n///cU='),(1,'2011-02-06 00:47:38','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\nReady for stable-0.11',2416,'AAAL23////g='),(2,'2011-02-06 15:36:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2416,'AAAL23////I='),(1,'2011-02-06 00:47:23','Uploaded patch set 3.',2416,'AAAL23////k='),(2,'2011-02-06 15:36:43','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2416,'AAAL23////M='),(1,'2011-02-06 01:41:16','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; IP review completed\n\n',2416,'AAAL23////Q='),(1,'2011-02-06 01:41:06','Uploaded patch set 4.',2416,'AAAL23////U='),(4,'2011-02-06 01:07:41','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2416,'AAAL23////Y='),(2,'2011-02-04 16:36:30','Patch Set 2:\n\nCan this be pushed into stable-0.11?',2416,'AAAL2n//+o0='),(1,'2011-02-04 15:51:57','Uploaded patch set 2.',2416,'AAAL2n//+pE='),(4,'2011-02-04 21:13:31','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nwe don\'t need these dependencies for 0.11',2417,'AAAL2n//+ow='),(1,'2011-02-04 15:06:24','Patch Set 1: Do not submit\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',2417,'AAAL2n//+pI='),(2,'2011-02-04 16:36:02','Patch Set 2:\n\nCan this go into stable-0.11?',2418,'AAAL2n//+o4='),(4,'2011-02-05 09:13:19','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- replaced by change Ieefc4023 heading for stable-0.11, will be merged back from there',2418,'AAAL2n//+og='),(4,'2011-02-05 09:16:03','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nreplaced by change Ieefc4023',2418,'AAAL2n//+oU='),(46,'2011-02-04 16:17:03','Uploaded patch set 2.',2418,'AAAL2n//+pA='),(4,'2011-02-04 22:01:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2419,'AAAL2n//+ok='),(4,'2011-02-04 22:01:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2419,'AAAL2n//+oo='),(4,'2011-02-05 09:14:01','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2420,'AAAL2n//+oc='),(2,'2011-02-05 17:29:46','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2420,'AAAL2n//+oI='),(2,'2011-02-05 17:29:44','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThis is good.',2420,'AAAL2n//+oM='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:37:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2421,'AAAL23///x4='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:37:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2421,'AAAL23///x8='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:37:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',2421,'AAAL23///yA='),(4,'2011-02-05 23:00:20','Uploaded patch set 2.',2422,'AAAL23////8='),(2,'2011-02-06 15:37:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2422,'AAAL23////A='),(2,'2011-02-06 15:37:13','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks reasonable. Thanks Matthias.',2422,'AAAL23////E='),(2,'2011-02-06 15:37:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2423,'AAAL23///+4='),(2,'2011-02-06 15:37:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nSimple fix, looks good.',2423,'AAAL23///+8='),(2,'2011-02-14 21:20:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2424,'AAAL23///ug='),(2,'2011-02-14 21:20:40','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nDone.',2424,'AAAL23///uk='),(49,'2011-02-14 21:19:23','Patch Set 4:\n\nI hope this will be the last time ;)',2424,'AAAL23///uo='),(49,'2011-02-14 21:18:53','Uploaded patch set 4.',2424,'AAAL23///us='),(2,'2011-02-14 21:14:55','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nRebase again.',2424,'AAAL23///uw='),(NULL,'2011-02-14 21:13:00','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.',2424,'AAAL23///vE='),(2,'2011-02-14 21:12:59','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2424,'AAAL23///vI='),(49,'2011-02-13 21:59:04','Uploaded patch set 2.',2424,'AAAL23///w0='),(2,'2011-02-14 04:12:41','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nLooks good, just need a question answered.',2424,'AAAL23///wk='),(49,'2011-02-14 09:23:20','Uploaded patch set 3.',2424,'AAAL23///wU='),(49,'2011-02-13 21:59:18','Patch Set 2:\n\nrebased',2424,'AAAL23///ww='),(49,'2011-02-14 09:19:02','Patch Set 2: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2424,'AAAL23///wY='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:38:08','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2424,'AAAL23///x0='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:42:36','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCan you fix conflicts and rebase?',2424,'AAAL23///xg='),(NULL,'2011-02-13 21:38:08','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.',2424,'AAAL23///xw='),(4,'2011-02-06 00:21:18','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nwrong change id',2425,'AAAL23////4='),(1,'2011-02-06 00:35:02','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2426,'AAAL23////0='),(1,'2011-02-06 00:35:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2426,'AAAL23////w='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:21:11','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2427,'AAAL23///zg='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:21:10','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2427,'AAAL23///zk='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:23:06','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2428,'AAAL23///zc='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:23:07','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2428,'AAAL23///zY='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:23:35','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2429,'AAAL23///zQ='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:23:35','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2429,'AAAL23///zU='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:26:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2430,'AAAL23///y8='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:26:58','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good now.',2430,'AAAL23///zA='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:26:42','Uploaded patch set 2.',2430,'AAAL23///zE='),(NULL,'2011-02-13 21:25:47','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',2430,'AAAL23///zI='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:25:46','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2430,'AAAL23///zM='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:31:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2431,'AAAL23///yc='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:30:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2431,'AAAL23///yg='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:30:35','Uploaded patch set 2.',2431,'AAAL23///yk='),(NULL,'2011-02-13 21:29:39','Change cannot be merged due to unsatisfiable dependencies.\n\nThe following dependency errors were found:\n\n* Depends on patch set 1 of Iffaaa225, however the current patch set is 2.\n\nPlease rebase the change and upload a replacement commit.',2431,'AAAL23///yo='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:29:39','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2431,'AAAL23///ys='),(1,'2011-02-06 22:09:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2432,'AAAL23///+w='),(1,'2011-02-08 00:54:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',2432,'AAAL23///78='),(2,'2011-02-14 23:13:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2432,'AAAL23///uU='),(2,'2011-02-14 23:12:59','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nSeems fine.',2432,'AAAL23///uY='),(1,'2011-02-13 21:52:06','Uploaded patch set 4.',2432,'AAAL23///w8='),(1,'2011-02-06 22:09:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2433,'AAAL23///+0='),(1,'2011-02-08 00:54:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',2433,'AAAL23///8A='),(2,'2011-02-14 23:13:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2433,'AAAL23///uM='),(2,'2011-02-14 23:13:38','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2433,'AAAL23///uQ='),(1,'2011-02-13 21:52:06','Uploaded patch set 4.',2433,'AAAL23///xA='),(6,'2011-02-21 12:50:53','Patch Set 1:\n\nCould you please briefly describe in the Commit Message why these classes are not needed anymore, especially GitSynchronize.java?',2434,'AAAL23///cg='),(6,'2011-02-23 13:54:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2434,'AAAL23///Uo='),(6,'2011-02-23 13:54:38','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2434,'AAAL23///Us='),(49,'2011-02-23 10:34:36','Patch Set 2:\n\nUpdated commit message',2434,'AAAL23///VI='),(49,'2011-02-23 10:34:13','Uploaded patch set 2.',2434,'AAAL23///VM='),(2,'2011-02-22 16:10:49','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCan you update the patch?',2434,'AAAL23///W4='),(8,'2011-02-07 07:04:03','Patch Set 1:\n\nWasn\'t there a reason to add quotes in the first place, but you discovered the rules weren\'t that simple?',2435,'AAAL23///+U='),(1,'2011-02-07 08:42:13','Patch Set 1:\n\nI thought we were supposed to quote... but some services that run their own SSH command filters (e.g. gitosis, gitolite, GitHub) didn\'t like having the git command names quoted.\n\nIt turns out CGit doesn\'t to do any quoting of the string supplied by the user. If quoting is required, the user must include it in the string they pass to CGit. Thus we shouldn\'t quote, at all, ever. Which is what this change does.',2435,'AAAL23///94='),(2,'2011-02-07 16:32:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2435,'AAAL23///9c='),(2,'2011-02-07 16:32:54','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2435,'AAAL23///9Y='),(2,'2011-02-07 02:02:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2436,'AAAL23///+g='),(2,'2011-02-07 02:02:12','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. Thanks Matthias.',2436,'AAAL23///+k='),(2,'2011-02-07 02:43:33','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nI don\'t see a better way of doing this versus null checks, so it\'s going in.',2437,'AAAL23///+c='),(2,'2011-02-07 02:43:33','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2437,'AAAL23///+Y='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:57:31','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nreplaced by http://egit.eclipse.org/r/2444 to bring this fix to 0.11',2438,'AAAL23///58='),(4,'2011-02-07 09:22:43','Patch Set 1:\n\nI think this should go into stable-0.11',2438,'AAAL23///90='),(4,'2011-02-07 17:09:33','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n- replaced by http://egit.eclipse.org/r/2444 to bring this fix to 0.11\n- will be merged back to master',2438,'AAAL23///9U='),(49,'2011-02-07 09:26:32','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve\n\n',2438,'AAAL23///9w='),(1,'2011-02-08 00:54:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',2439,'AAAL23///74='),(2,'2011-02-14 23:15:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2439,'AAAL23///t8='),(2,'2011-02-14 23:15:33','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2439,'AAAL23///uA='),(1,'2011-02-13 21:52:06','Uploaded patch set 3.',2439,'AAAL23///w4='),(1,'2011-02-07 01:47:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',2440,'AAAL23///+o='),(1,'2011-02-08 00:54:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',2440,'AAAL23///8I='),(2,'2011-02-15 17:09:39','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2440,'AAAL23///r0='),(2,'2011-02-15 17:09:39','Patch Set 5: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2440,'AAAL23///r4='),(NULL,'2011-02-14 23:19:40','Your change requires a recursive merge to resolve.\n\nPlease merge (or rebase) the change locally and upload the resolution for review.',2440,'AAAL23///t0='),(2,'2011-02-14 23:19:40','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2440,'AAAL23///t4='),(1,'2011-02-15 02:40:56','Uploaded patch set 5.',2440,'AAAL23///to='),(2,'2011-02-14 23:19:56','Patch Set 4: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nrebase',2440,'AAAL23///tw='),(1,'2011-02-13 21:52:05','Uploaded patch set 4.',2440,'AAAL23///xQ='),(1,'2011-02-07 01:47:10','Uploaded patch set 2.',2441,'AAAL23///+s='),(1,'2011-02-08 00:54:44','Uploaded patch set 3.',2441,'AAAL23///8M='),(2,'2011-02-15 19:36:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2441,'AAAL23///rk='),(2,'2011-02-15 19:36:47','Patch Set 6: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2441,'AAAL23///ro='),(2,'2011-02-15 19:36:38','Uploaded patch set 6.',2441,'AAAL23///rs='),(1,'2011-02-15 02:40:56','Uploaded patch set 5.',2441,'AAAL23///ts='),(1,'2011-02-13 21:52:05','Uploaded patch set 4.',2441,'AAAL23///xU='),(46,'2011-02-15 16:09:26','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2442,'AAAL23///r8='),(46,'2011-02-15 16:09:25','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nRebased to current master.',2442,'AAAL23///sA='),(46,'2011-02-15 16:08:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',2442,'AAAL23///sE='),(NULL,'2011-02-15 16:08:26','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.',2442,'AAAL23///sI='),(46,'2011-02-15 16:08:25','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nYes, this looks much better.',2442,'AAAL23///sM='),(2,'2011-02-17 16:28:35','Uploaded patch set 4.',2443,'AAAL23///kc='),(2,'2011-02-17 16:31:40','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2443,'AAAL23///kU='),(2,'2011-02-17 16:31:39','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nI\'m happy enough with this to go in.',2443,'AAAL23///kY='),(4,'2011-02-16 23:58:16','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this; No score\n\nhit the wrong radio button',2443,'AAAL23///lE='),(4,'2011-02-16 23:57:27','Patch Set 3: Unclean IP, do not check in\n\n(3 inline comments)\n\n',2443,'AAAL23///lI='),(2,'2011-02-16 16:36:12','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\ntests fail for now',2443,'AAAL23///n8='),(2,'2011-02-16 17:28:16','Uploaded patch set 3.',2443,'AAAL23///no='),(2,'2011-02-16 16:28:51','Uploaded patch set 2.',2443,'AAAL23///oA='),(4,'2011-02-07 17:10:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2444,'AAAL23///9M='),(4,'2011-02-07 17:10:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2444,'AAAL23///9Q='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:58:16','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nreplaced by Change Ie639e366 to retarget for stable-0.11',2445,'AAAL23///50='),(49,'2011-02-07 19:42:42','Patch Set 1: (3 inline comments)\n\nList of changes should be sorted in descending order and maybe limited to last 100 changes (it would be nice if this could be set in preferences).',2445,'AAAL23///84='),(4,'2011-02-07 22:56:33','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n',2445,'AAAL23///8s='),(4,'2011-02-07 22:56:01','Patch Set 1:\n\nreplaced by Change Ie639e366 to retarget for stable-0.11',2445,'AAAL23///8w='),(4,'2011-02-07 22:57:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2446,'AAAL23///8k='),(4,'2011-02-07 22:57:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2446,'AAAL23///8o='),(4,'2011-02-07 23:11:47','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- retargeted for stable-0.11\n- rebased\n- added missing license headers\n- changed keyboard shortcut to explicit CTRL+SPACE to make this also work on Mac where M1+SPACE  translates to COMMAND+SPACE which clashes with spotlight shortcut\n- changed to reverse sort order of gerrit changes since the newest ones have the highest number so this should reduce the need for scrolling\n- improved order of actions in menu',2447,'AAAL23///8c='),(4,'2011-02-07 23:03:07','Uploaded patch set 2.',2447,'AAAL23///8g='),(2,'2011-02-08 00:07:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2447,'AAAL23///8Q='),(2,'2011-02-08 00:06:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nI\'m pushing this in for now. There\'s a bit of work we can do to improve the UI and code but this is OK for now.',2447,'AAAL23///8U='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:42:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2448,'AAAL23///xk='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:42:00','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nCool stuff.',2448,'AAAL23///xo='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:41:39','Uploaded patch set 2.',2448,'AAAL23///xs='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:32:41','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2449,'AAAL23///yQ='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:32:40','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2449,'AAAL23///yU='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:32:29','Uploaded patch set 2.',2449,'AAAL23///yY='),(2,'2011-02-14 23:15:00','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2450,'AAAL23///uE='),(2,'2011-02-14 23:14:59','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2450,'AAAL23///uI='),(1,'2011-02-13 21:52:05','Uploaded patch set 2.',2450,'AAAL23///xI='),(46,'2011-02-08 07:47:37','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nWrong branch',2451,'AAAL23///70='),(46,'2011-02-08 07:53:57','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nBotched again',2452,'AAAL23///7w='),(2,'2011-02-08 13:25:21','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2453,'AAAL23///7g='),(2,'2011-02-08 13:25:21','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nCan you also push this towards master?',2453,'AAAL23///7k='),(2,'2011-02-08 13:25:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2454,'AAAL23///7o='),(2,'2011-02-08 13:25:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nCan you also push this towards master?',2454,'AAAL23///7s='),(46,'2011-02-09 09:01:05','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2455,'AAAL23///5c='),(46,'2011-02-09 09:01:05','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nOh, I\'m sorry. Total confusion on my side...\nIn the long run, we should replace the coding in CloneOperation to a neat little call to the JGit API CloneCommand, but a quick look tells me we can\'t do this yet...\nThanks for the fix.',2455,'AAAL23///5g='),(118,'2011-02-08 18:17:19','Patch Set 3:\n\nThis change is for CloneOperation in egit.core while http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,2456 you mentioned is for CloneCommand in jgit.',2455,'AAAL23///64='),(118,'2011-02-08 13:56:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',2455,'AAAL23///7c='),(46,'2011-02-08 17:03:27','Patch Set 3: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nI guess we should follow up in\n\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,2456\n\nIf that\'s correct, please abandon this one.',2455,'AAAL23///7E='),(118,'2011-02-08 16:05:08','Uploaded patch set 3.',2455,'AAAL23///7I='),(49,'2011-02-08 14:34:08','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nPlease fix line ending issues.',2455,'AAAL23///7M='),(4,'2011-02-09 00:01:31','Patch Set 2:\n\nMathias: you can\'t upload here since only committers have the permission to forge author identity',2456,'AAAL23///5w='),(46,'2011-02-08 17:17:40','Patch Set 2: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nGerrit doesn\'t let me upload (\"you are not author...\")...\nAnyway, there is change\n\nhttp://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,2455\n\nwhich seems to be competing with this one... One should be closed anyway.',2456,'AAAL23///68='),(2,'2011-02-08 14:26:27','Uploaded patch set 2.',2456,'AAAL23///7Q='),(46,'2011-02-08 14:24:03','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\n',2456,'AAAL23///7U='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:34:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2456,'AAAL23///yE='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:34:57','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nThis is fine.\n\nThis doesn\'t related to 2455 which deals with CloneOperation, not CloneCommand in JGit.',2456,'AAAL23///yI='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:33:52','Uploaded patch set 3.',2456,'AAAL23///yM='),(4,'2011-02-08 22:53:55','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2457,'AAAL23///6o='),(4,'2011-02-08 22:53:55','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2457,'AAAL23///6s='),(49,'2011-02-08 21:33:31','Uploaded patch set 2.',2458,'AAAL23///60='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:13:13','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2458,'AAAL23///6c='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:13:12','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2458,'AAAL23///6g='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:12:25','Uploaded patch set 3.',2458,'AAAL23///6k='),(49,'2011-02-08 21:33:49','Patch Set 2:\n\nrebased on stable-0.11',2458,'AAAL23///6w='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:22:47','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2459,'AAAL23///48='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:22:46','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.\n\nCan you also push this for master and upload a new change?',2459,'AAAL23///5A='),(49,'2011-02-09 01:00:56','Patch Set 3:\n\n* fixed issue with decorators\r\n* added test case for this issue',2459,'AAAL23///5o='),(49,'2011-02-09 01:00:10','Uploaded patch set 3.',2459,'AAAL23///5s='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:41:32','Patch Set 2:\n\n- rebased\n- fixed typo in commit message\n\n- Shouldn\'t deleted files be decorated as deletions ?\n- how about some test',2459,'AAAL23///6U='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:39:55','Uploaded patch set 2.',2459,'AAAL23///6Y='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:55:53','Patch Set 3:\n\n- rebased\n- fixed typos in commit message',2460,'AAAL23///6A='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:54:59','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2460,'AAAL23///6E='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:54:58','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2460,'AAAL23///6I='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:54:21','Uploaded patch set 3.',2460,'AAAL23///6M='),(4,'2011-02-08 23:53:28','Uploaded patch set 2.',2460,'AAAL23///6Q='),(44,'2011-02-09 14:11:42','Patch Set 2: Abandoned\n\nwrong branch',2461,'AAAL23///5E='),(44,'2011-02-09 10:22:12','Uploaded patch set 2.',2461,'AAAL23///5Y='),(1,'2011-02-12 02:53:23','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\n(1 inline comment)\n\nChange looks like it fixes the bug, but the surrounding context is now a bit more confusing due to a pointless null check.',2462,'AAAL23///1k='),(1,'2011-02-15 14:33:31','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2462,'AAAL23///sk='),(1,'2011-02-15 14:33:30','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2462,'AAAL23///so='),(1,'2011-02-15 14:32:24','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2462,'AAAL23///ss='),(51,'2011-02-15 08:38:02','Patch Set 1: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2462,'AAAL23///tQ='),(51,'2011-02-15 08:35:50','Uploaded patch set 2.',2462,'AAAL23///tY='),(44,'2011-02-09 14:03:00','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nwrong branch',2463,'AAAL23///5M='),(44,'2011-02-09 13:57:13','Patch Set 1:\n\nPrerequisite for EGit change http://egit.eclipse.org/r/2464',2463,'AAAL23///5U='),(44,'2011-02-09 14:02:47','Patch Set 1: Abandoned\n\nwrong branch',2464,'AAAL23///5Q='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:23:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2465,'AAAL23///40='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:23:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good. That logic there is a bit hairy.',2465,'AAAL23///44='),(46,'2011-02-10 08:28:10','Patch Set 1:\n\nWhat do you mean with hairy? How should we improve this?',2465,'AAAL23///4A='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:25:14','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2466,'AAAL23///4s='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:25:14','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2466,'AAAL23///4w='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:25:53','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2467,'AAAL23///4k='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:25:53','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks fine.',2467,'AAAL23///4o='),(44,'2011-02-09 14:09:10','Patch Set 1:\n\nPrerequisite for http://egit.eclipse.org/r/2468',2467,'AAAL23///5I='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:27:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2468,'AAAL23///4c='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:27:16','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2468,'AAAL23///4g='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:27:36','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2469,'AAAL23///4U='),(2,'2011-02-09 17:27:36','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2469,'AAAL23///4Y='),(2,'2011-02-14 21:14:44','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2470,'AAAL23///u0='),(2,'2011-02-14 21:14:43','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2470,'AAAL23///u4='),(100,'2011-02-14 09:02:45','Uploaded patch set 2.',2470,'AAAL23///wg='),(NULL,'2011-02-13 21:28:06','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.',2470,'AAAL23///y0='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:28:05','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2470,'AAAL23///y4='),(2,'2011-02-13 21:28:47','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nCan you fix conflicts and reupload?',2470,'AAAL23///yw='),(2,'2011-02-15 19:46:02','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good now.',2471,'AAAL23///rc='),(2,'2011-02-15 19:45:47','Uploaded patch set 2.',2471,'AAAL23///rg='),(2,'2011-02-15 19:46:03','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2471,'AAAL23///rY='),(79,'2011-02-12 18:05:39','Patch Set 2:\n\nChanges in change set 2:\n· Add a label for the repository combo\n· Show \"No repositories configured\" in the combo when no repositories are found\n· Show only config stored in repository config instead of effective config',2472,'AAAL23///0M='),(79,'2011-02-12 18:02:23','Uploaded patch set 2.',2472,'AAAL23///0Q='),(46,'2011-02-10 09:42:55','Patch Set 1: I would prefer that you didn\'t submit this\n\nVery nice already. I would just want to have a label for the \"Repository\" combo.\n\nIn addition, I think we need to be able to toggle between \"effective\" and \"repository-specific\" configuration. At the moment, you see the effective config, but you shouldn\'t be able to edit this, because it would be unclear which file fould be affected by a change (global, user or repo-specific).\nI imagine a checkbox (\"Show effective configuration\", default off, when checked, the edit buttons should be disabled).\n\nI must say that I\'m not quite sure about whether having this in the Preferences area is the right thing to do, but I wouldn\'t mind having it just like you suggeted it.\n\nI agree that it\'s not \"Configuration\" in the classical Eclipse meaning, but then, the Repo config is tightly integrated with the global and user configs, so I think it dramatically improves usability.\n \nOn the other hand, creating a dialog showing the same information shouldn\'t be too much effort (at the cost of loosing the integration aspect). This could then be added to the Repositories View as menu action.\n\nIn any case, I think we can put this discussion aside for the moment. Refactoring this out of the Preferences afterwards shouldn\'t be too much effort.',2472,'AAAL23///38='),(79,'2011-02-09 21:00:47','Patch Set 1:\n\nFor me, doing it this way also doesn\'t feel quite right. It\'s not a preference for Git or Eclipse, but belongs with the repository. I\'d prefer it to be just available from the Git Repositories view as an entry in the context menu which opens a property page for configuring the selected repository.',2472,'AAAL23///4M='),(46,'2011-02-14 15:21:54','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nFixed spaces vs. tab issue.',2472,'AAAL23///vg='),(46,'2011-02-14 15:20:46','Uploaded patch set 4.',2472,'AAAL23///vk='),(44,'2011-02-14 16:22:16','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2472,'AAAL23///vU='),(79,'2011-02-14 15:03:49','Patch Set 3: (1 inline comment)\n\n',2472,'AAAL23///vw='),(44,'2011-02-14 16:22:16','Patch Set 4: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nNice feature!',2472,'AAAL23///vY='),(46,'2011-02-14 13:54:02','Patch Set 3: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nGreat work! I just did some minor changes to align the \"Repository\" and \"Location\" labels better and added some keyboard shortcuts to a few labels.',2472,'AAAL23///wA='),(46,'2011-02-14 13:52:28','Uploaded patch set 3.',2472,'AAAL23///wE='),(2,'2011-02-09 22:53:42','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2473,'AAAL23///4E='),(2,'2011-02-09 22:53:42','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nLooks good.',2473,'AAAL23///4I='),(4,'2011-02-10 12:23:33','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nfixed formatting',2474,'AAAL23///30='),(4,'2011-02-10 12:23:02','Uploaded patch set 2.',2474,'AAAL23///34='),(4,'2011-02-10 12:23:34','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2474,'AAAL23///3w='),(4,'2011-02-10 12:39:52','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2475,'AAAL23///3k='),(4,'2011-02-10 12:39:52','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\nrebased',2475,'AAAL23///3o='),(4,'2011-02-10 12:39:14','Uploaded patch set 2.',2475,'AAAL23///3s='),(44,'2011-02-11 11:29:57','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2476,'AAAL23///3U='),(44,'2011-02-11 11:29:56','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2476,'AAAL23///3Y='),(4,'2011-02-11 10:33:17','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2477,'AAAL23///3c='),(4,'2011-02-11 10:33:17','Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n',2477,'AAAL23///3g='),(4,'2011-02-11 12:21:56','Change has been successfully merged into the git repository.',2478,'AAAL23///3I='),(4,'2011-02-11 12:21:56','Patch Set 2: Looks good to me, approved; Build Successful; IP review completed\n\n- rebased\n- fixed style nit\n\nthanks, now it works like a charm :-)',2478,'AAAL23///3M='),(4,'2011-02-11 12:21:03','Uploaded patch set 2.',2478,'AAAL23///3Q='),(116,'2011-02-12 18:27:54','Uploaded patch set 3.',2479,'AAAL23///0I='),