From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Allow reference values to be checked in a transaction Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:45:58 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1423412045-15616-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> <54D91B24.5050808@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Stefan Beller , Ronnie Sahlberg , Jonathan Nieder , =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= , "git\@vger.kernel.org" To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 09 21:46:10 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YKvDd-0007Vx-1M for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 21:46:09 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759820AbbBIUqE (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:04 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:55966 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759368AbbBIUqD (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:03 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A06035060; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:01 -0500 (EST) 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=zeSoup01CFgsUn1hWuUk2+dIps8=; b=OjFTuo v3EuGSKytW6FpWs/Bui80Tiv6dvVmOszWPF7bcQIxe1laqFsB+fAo7XKc5Yggsfr O2CxtaeEubfwZHZcjoSSZ3XyWX3Pf6DfKIuagkVQd/wCdJvz0imdOpilf1CoK0ps CipEnOB3XuApSUXRIbrMQFqAX5B+BIZ2k+4Z8= 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=xjICUuHjCKzrjp/GCRjVwq5AJBkAEPkj Scf5qDw7Qnas9P7kU07TeFZ2F/X0D0bDF9N9knQ1SWA/7D+S1DR58xA05FRH0Te9 Y7PDk5nnokYV5j8ikNAnupq4lHPYMZskMqPF2HsmRnNPqHpM1rtiu6Zg/JhWu3N3 G6tZ1MyG4AM= Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729BB3505F; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6383C3505D; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:00 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <54D91B24.5050808@alum.mit.edu> (Michael Haggerty's message of "Mon, 09 Feb 2015 21:40:04 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A7E5D140-B09C-11E4-ADD6-7BA29F42C9D4-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Michael Haggerty writes: > On 02/09/2015 08:05 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Michael Haggerty writes: >>>> [...] >>>> This patch series applies on top of master merged together with >>>> sb/atomic-push, which in turn depends on mh/reflog-expire. >>> >>> I am a bit puzzled by your intentions, so help me out. >>> >>> I see that your understanding is that Stefan will be rerolling the >>> push atomicity thing; wouldn't we then want to have a "fix and >>> clean" topic like this one first and build the push atomicity thing >>> on top instead? >> >> My understanding is to not reroll origin/sb/atomic-push, but >> origin/sb/atomic-push-fix (which is worded misleading. It is not about >> atomic pushes, but about enabling large transactions in my understanding) > > Yes, that is what I thought. > ... > Both series have to do with reflogs, but they are logically pretty > independent. In particular, "Fix some problems with reflog expiration" > fixes problems that existed before mh/reflog-expire. And considering > that one topic is quite mature whereas the the other is just making its > debut, it seemed like yoking them together would slow down the first > topic for no good reason. > ... > I expected that mh/reflog-expire and sb/atomic-push would be merged > pretty early in the 2.4 cycle (they are both in next already). Junio, is > that not your plan? OK, I am glad I asked for clarifications. It was that I felt uneasy to see many new "this cleans and fixes" while there are in-flight topics in the same area. Thanks.