From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Farwell Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] git-p4: fix for handling of multiple depot paths Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 22:56:38 +0000 Message-ID: <1450220213834.32062@vmware.com> References: <1450037234-15344-1-git-send-email-luke@diamand.org> , Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Git Users , Lars Schneider , Eric Sunshine , "Sam Hocevar" To: Luke Diamand , Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 15 23:56:47 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 1a8yWT-0008I3-H2 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:56:45 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933755AbbLOW4l (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:56:41 -0500 Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com ([208.91.2.13]:39716 "EHLO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932885AbbLOW4l convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:56:41 -0500 Received: from sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com (sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com [10.113.161.72]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD2128B76; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from EX13-CAS-002.vmware.com (ex13-cas-002.vmware.com [10.113.191.52]) by sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C5FB041E; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:56:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from EX13-MBX-017.vmware.com (10.113.191.37) by EX13-MBX-003.vmware.com (10.113.191.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:56:39 -0800 Received: from EX13-MBX-017.vmware.com ([fe80::f930:f6a8:dfb:ff54]) by EX13-MBX-017.vmware.com ([fe80::f930:f6a8:dfb:ff54%15]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.010; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:56:39 -0800 Thread-Topic: [PATCH 0/2] git-p4: fix for handling of multiple depot paths Thread-Index: AQHRNru+SIEOrmOLdkaoRLgTBVwig57LoZKAgAEIRp4= In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.113.170.11] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: I'm not sure if my opinion as an outsider is of use, but since the perforce change number is monotonically increasing, my expectation as a user would be for them to be applied in order by the perforce change number. :) - James ________________________________________ From: Luke Diamand Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 3:09 PM To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git Users; James Farwell; Lars Schneider; Eric Sunshine; Sam Hocevar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] git-p4: fix for handling of multiple depot paths Sorry - I've just run the tests, and this change causes one of the test cases in t9800-git-p4-basic.sh to fail. It looks like the test case makes an assumption about who wins if two P4 depots have changes to files that end up in the same place, and this change reverses the order. It may actually be fine, but it needs to be thought about a bit. Sam - do you have any thoughts on this? Thanks Luke On 14 December 2015 at 22:06, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Luke Diamand writes: > >> On 14 December 2015 at 19:16, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Luke Diamand writes: >>> >>>> Having just fixed this, I've now just spotted that Sam Hocevar's fix >>>> to reduce the number of P4 transactions also fixes it: >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mail-2Darchive.com_git-2540vger.kernel.org_msg81880.html&d=BQIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=wkCayFhpIBdAOEa7tZDTcd1weqwtiFMEIQTL-WQPwC4&m=q8dsOAHvUiDzzPNGRAfMMrcXstxNlI-v7I_03uEL1e8&s=C8wVLMC-iU7We0r36sxOuu920ZjZYdpy7ysNi_5PYv8&e= >>>> >>>> That seems like a cleaner fix. >>> >>> Hmm, do you mean I should ignore this series and take the other one, >>> take only 1/2 from this for tests and then both patches in the other >>> one, or something else? >> >> The second of those (take only 1/2 from this for tests, and then both >> from the other) seems like the way to go. > > OK. Should I consider the two patches from Sam "Reviewed-by" you?