Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2020, #01; Wed, 5)

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 09:57:48AM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 06:51:30PM -0800, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > > * tb/commit-graph-split-merge (2020-02-05) 3 commits
> > >  - builtin/commit-graph.c: support '--input=none'
> > >  - builtin/commit-graph.c: introduce '--input=<source>'
> > >  - builtin/commit-graph.c: support '--split[=<strategy>]'
> > >  (this branch uses tb/commit-graph-object-dir.)
> > >
> > >  The code to write out the commit-graph has been taught a few
> > >  options to control if the resulting graph chains should be merged
> > >  or a single new incremental graph is created.
> > >
> > >  Will merge to 'next'?
> >
> > I think that this is ready. Martin Ågren and I discussed a little bit
> > about the rationale behind why the new options were chosen over
> > alternatives, but I think we reached consensus (at least, the thread has
> > been quiet for a few days after sending 'v2').
> >
> > So, if you're asking whether or not this is ready to merge to 'next',
> > I'd say that it is, but I'd like to hear from Martin's thoughts, too.
> > (For what it's worth, we're *also* running this at GitHub, and without
> > issue).
>
> Please don't rush it, those '--input=<source>' options need more
> consideration.

Of course, and I'm happy to discuss more, if that's what others discuss.
I thought that things had settled since the thread quieted down after
sending 'v2'. But, if there's more to discuss, certainly we should do
that before queuing this up.

Let's wait a little while longer and see what happens there before
queuing this topic.

Thanks,
Taylor