From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7601F667 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:58:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751069AbdHVP6T (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:58:19 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:61976 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751010AbdHVP6S (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:58:18 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E5BA496E; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:58:18 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Ae7X7xkpJvpTxeMfO0+IVE6GRGI=; b=bbx5FV A+slekVdXpdV3ejwZIuqJjFnliIJM2HvOp4tBMCAX3exvgNwaoGx9AB+LdZALWLm 39i98hZ2U5plwjShQzw/La7Z66kjiWcQLsU3h8DnhLjYqUOLPwTwFZ43HPzCLnQ+ 3xg5YqkMvKxWOap3z1Z0D/k0FPlJCS1HTDY1o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=hiJO69j/GKnR46YJ6J+ITR9k30A80I/z Vh+EzxtdZBrEvCuIfgd2Am788/QnGvl4Q90iejtKtgXeYs6Moq1Noz9A9kirE+Ex HsMfo9NtScvnjOTSfwmccXF0O+Qz/OHXg2l5eNtFbxmToVQ7wjqUWr34dzjWgHcE Vc19MyyqoFM= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103AAA496D; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72424A496C; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:58:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Duy Nguyen Cc: Git Mailing List Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2017, #04; Fri, 18) References: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:58:16 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Duy Nguyen's message of "Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:49:12 +0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B65EF492-8752-11E7-83D6-9D2B0D78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Duy Nguyen writes: > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> [Discarded] >> >> * nd/prune-in-worktree (2017-04-24) 12 commits >> . rev-list: expose and document --single-worktree >> . revision.c: --reflog add HEAD reflog from all worktrees >> . files-backend: make reflog iterator go through per-worktree reflog >> . revision.c: --all adds HEAD from all worktrees >> . refs: remove dead for_each_*_submodule() >> . revision.c: use refs_for_each*() instead of for_each_*_submodule() >> . refs: add refs_head_ref() >> . refs: move submodule slash stripping code to get_submodule_ref_store >> . refs.c: refactor get_submodule_ref_store(), share common free block >> . revision.c: --indexed-objects add objects from all worktrees >> . revision.c: refactor add_index_objects_to_pending() >> . revision.h: new flag in struct rev_info wrt. worktree-related refs >> >> "git gc" and friends when multiple worktrees are used off of a >> single repository did not consider the index and per-worktree refs >> of other worktrees as the root for reachability traversal, making >> objects that are in use only in other worktrees to be subject to >> garbage collection. > > I'm back and will try to continue this. Is it discarded because of > lack of progress, or because the problem is already fixed some other > way? A quick "git log --oneline" on important files has not revealed > anything. Welcome back. I ejected it out of 'pu' due to inactivity and possibly because I saw some conflicts with topics that were making progress back then. I do not offhand know if the old one still merges cleanly to 'pu', but it certainly wasn't because the topic was deemed unnecessary. Thanks.