Re: [PATCH v3] cache-tree.c: remove implicit dependency on the_repository

[Chinmoy Chakraborty <chinmoy12c@gmail.com>]

On 4/4/21 7:19 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Nothing else needs to be said.  The update-main-cache-tree is a thin
> wrapper to work on cache tree for THE MAIN in-core index instance,
> so it is natural if it needs to pass r and r->index, exactly because
> the latter is THE MAIN in-core index instance for the repository.
> That is too obvious that it is best left unsaid, for the same reason
> why you shouldn't even mention what you did in updating the use of
> update_cache_tree() inside unpack_trees().  There is nothing notable
> in there.
>
> cf. Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> [[describe-changes]]
> [[summary-section]]
> [[meaningful-message]]
> [[imperative-mood]]

Okay, I'll update the message. Thanks for the review.


>> This commit also fixes the `sparse-index.c` file in which
>> the `convert_to_sparse()` and `ensure_full_index()`
>> method use `cache_tree_update()`.
> What branch did you base this patch on?  There is no update_cache_tree()
> call in sparse-index.c on 'master' (well, there is no sparse-index.c
> in 'master' to begin with).

Actually the patch hit against a use of `cache_tree_update()` in

the branch 'ds/sparse-index', so I was suggested by Derrick Stolee

to rebase my work on to of his branch.

You may view the discussion here:

https://lore.kernel.org/git/f187df01-8e59-ac74-01e1-586a7a63fd4e@gmail.com/


> And if you are building somewhere other than the tip of 'master', it
> is necessary to say where, in order to save confusion and wasted
> effort for your readers.  E.g.  "This patch was made on top of
> merging topic 'X' and 'Y' into 'master'".  Then you'd only have to
> wait for 'X' and 'Y' to graduate to 'master' before the topic can
> proceed.
>
> Thanks.

Should this information also be added to the commit message

or just the cover letter of the patch?