From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3CFA56770 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:52:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710352326; cv=none; b=Yx74a60SMuoo/akaXHe14X3i9iMUvEfOQv0FY8INjtCvvQHeIrsWOklFnDxdkuvRclZoKdZ/7vatagEiD7gZXQKFT++EMvnxibCKIGDQZf21BCzVaxTnhEBLp+/W3yOL3YnlzHVxZ0k2ql7gBCOSkMVBe35WzDn05Zu71TADKIc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710352326; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9+2qrKszzQvRqjRXAA4gIlFu61HT4buH2AOxF9tyYVI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=TH+V/zyU9dg+vF49d8k5aptAcZt66oh5uQ2HGNFEMvbXfOrXybX+IwoNT2Tjnabf+0eMdwKJXh9IlzFfOmMZ5E3jUDZM0BaQiLHSYRYHwZHf7gc5Sj1KbfHRLhSB35JJEx5d6VWEvfzLZvq6+Egb3b6C0zfySwxQRHAscJotH1I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=HWy41xOy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="HWy41xOy" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A41E2084C; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:52:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=9+2qrKszzQvRqjRXAA4gIlFu61HT4buH2AOxF9 tyYVI=; b=HWy41xOyLl88b6O1BqJWbcbxCYSxE0RM9RAindTDDWojuCTbVJyQtJ 7uUzhl7eHoEL83i27hR9wAcmCRlWtXULRjFF6HpzVmDSf3LpN3RxFdp7l1aAnruz tKXOr1tWdAeh3RcXCslWtCaC5D1Jx4l8PqwDSsmY/mMFxWg6pgUtg= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5341C2084B; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:52:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.185.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 009C820849; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:52:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Atneya Nair Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jeffhost@microsoft.com, me@ttaylorr.com, nasamuffin@google.com, Tanay Abhra , Glen Choo Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] Make ce_compare_gitlink thread-safe In-Reply-To: (Atneya Nair's message of "Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:15:29 -0700") References: <20240305012112.1598053-2-atneya@google.com> <20240305012112.1598053-4-atneya@google.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:51:59 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 64DB168E-E162-11EE-9A90-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Atneya Nair writes: > What is the appropriate way to split an intermediate patch into two? Simply > adding the additional commit as 3 of 4 would cause a mismatch between patch-set > versions? Would that cause any issues? If you have three patch series originally and the second one is too big, then you'd end up with four patch series whose second and third corresponds to the second patch of the original series, and the last patch of the updated series that is numbered 4 will correspond to the third one from the original. That is perfectly normal and you can see the correspondence with help from tools like range-diff.