Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2013, #05; Thu, 26)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> [New Topics]
>>>
>>> Would $gmane/239575 [1] be of interest for "New Topics"?
>>>
>>> [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/239575/
>>
>> Actually I was planning to scoop it up directly to master but forgot
>> to do so.
>
> Make sense.
>
>> Running "git diff maint pu -- name-hash.c" shows that we have added
>> a comment that mentions index_name_exists---that needs to be
>> adjusted, too, by the way.
>
> Oops, yes, I had noticed that too when testing atop 'pu' but then
> forgot about it when preparing the patch for submission on 'master'.
>
> I'm not sure how to move forward with this now that kb/fast-hashmap,
> with which it has a textual conflict, has graduated to 'next'. Should
> this become a two-patch series with one for scooping directly to
> 'master' and one for 'next' to sit atop kb/fast-hashmap? (But how will
> the textual conflict be handled?)

I have a feeling that a small unused helper function is not a huge
breakage that needs to be immediately fixed, so a single patch as a
clean-up on top of whatever is cooking on 'next' should be the best
approach, I would think.