From: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
To: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, pclouds@gmail.com,
Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] replacement for dt/refs-backend-lmdb v7 patch 04/33
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:05:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1459368315.2976.27.camel@twopensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56FB743C.3020902@alum.mit.edu>
On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 08:37 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 03/29/2016 10:12 PM, David Turner wrote:
> > On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 07:22 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> > > On 03/24/2016 07:47 AM, David Turner wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > I incorporated your changes into the lmdb backend. To make
> > > > merging
> > > > later more convenient, I rebased on top of pu -- I think this
> > > > mainly
> > > > depends on jk/check-repository-format, but I also included some
> > > > fixes
> > > > for a couple of tests that had been changed by other patches.
> > >
> > > I think rebasing changes on top of pu is counterproductive. I
> > > believe
> > > that Junio had extra work rebasing your earlier series onto a
> > > merge
> > > of
> > > the minimum number of topics that it really depended on. There is
> > > no
> > > way
> > > that he could merge the branch in this form because it would
> > > imply
> > > merging all of pu.
> > >
> > > See the zeroth section of SubmittingPatches [1] for the
> > > guidelines.
> >
> > I'm a bit confused because
> > [PATCH 18/21] get_default_remote(): remove unneeded flag variable
> >
> > doesn't do anything on master -- it depends on some patch in pu.
> > And
> > we definitely want to pick up jk/check-repository-format (which
> > doesn't
> > include whatever 18/21 depends on).
> >
> > So what do you think our base should be?
>
> I think the preference is to base a patch series on the merge of
> master
> plus the minimum number of topics in pu (ideally, none) that are
> "essential" prerequisites of the changes in the patch series. For
> example, the version of this patch series that Junio has in his tree
> was
> based on master + sb/submodule-parallel-update.
>
> Even if there are minor
> conflicts with another in-flight topic, it is easier for Junio to
> resolve the conflicts when merging the topics together than to rebase
> the patch series over and over as the other patch series evolves. The
> goal of this practice is of course to allow patch series to evolve
> independently of each other as much as possible.
>
> Of course if you have insights into nontrivial conflicts between your
> patch series and others, it would be helpful to discuss these in your
> cover letter.
If I am reading this correctly, it looks like your series also has a
few more sb submodule patches, e.g. sb/submodule-init, which is
responsible for the code that 18/21 depends on.
I think jk/check-repository-format is also good to get in first,
because it changes the startup sequence a bit and it's a bit tricky to
figure out what needs to change in dt/refs-backend-lmdb as a result of
it.
But I can't just merge jk/check-repository-format on top of 71defe0047
-- some function signatures have changed in the run-command stuff and
it seems kind of annoying to fix up.
So I propose instead that we just drop 18/21 for now, and use just
jk/check-repository-format as the base.
Does this seem reasonable to you?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-31 3:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-23 10:04 [PATCH 00/21] replacement for dt/refs-backend-lmdb v7 patch 04/33 Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 01/21] t1430: test the output and error of some commands more carefully Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 02/21] t1430: clean up broken refs/tags/shadow Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 03/21] t1430: don't rely on symbolic-ref for creating broken symrefs Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 04/21] t1430: test for-each-ref in the presence of badly-named refs Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 05/21] t1430: improve test coverage of deletion " Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 06/21] resolve_missing_loose_ref(): simplify semantics Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 07/21] resolve_ref_unsafe(): use for loop to count up to MAXDEPTH Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 08/21] resolve_ref_unsafe(): ensure flags is always set Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 09/21] resolve_ref_1(): eliminate local variable Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 10/21] resolve_ref_1(): reorder code Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 11/21] resolve_ref_1(): eliminate local variable "bad_name" Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 12/21] files-backend: break out ref reading Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 13/21] read_raw_ref(): manage own scratch space Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 14/21] Inline resolve_ref_1() into resolve_ref_unsafe() Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 15/21] read_raw_ref(): change flags parameter to unsigned int Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 16/21] fsck_head_link(): remove unneeded flag variable Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 17/21] cmd_merge(): " Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 18/21] get_default_remote(): " Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 19/21] checkout_paths(): " Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 20/21] check_aliased_update(): check that dst_name is non-NULL Michael Haggerty
2016-03-23 10:04 ` [PATCH 21/21] show_head_ref(): check the result of resolve_ref_namespace() Michael Haggerty
2016-03-24 6:47 ` [PATCH 00/21] replacement for dt/refs-backend-lmdb v7 patch 04/33 David Turner
2016-03-27 5:22 ` Michael Haggerty
2016-03-29 20:12 ` David Turner
2016-03-30 6:37 ` Michael Haggerty
2016-03-30 20:05 ` David Turner [this message]
2016-03-31 16:14 ` Michael Haggerty
2016-03-31 22:22 ` David Turner
2016-04-01 1:37 ` Stefan Beller
2016-04-01 17:55 ` David Turner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1459368315.2976.27.camel@twopensource.com \
--to=dturner@twopensource.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).