Re: [PATCH 04/13] remote: make get_remote_ref_states() always populate states.tracked

[Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Does this series _semantically_ depend on topics other than your other
> "set HEAD" topic that is still not in 'master'?

No, but I wanted Jeff's changes. I have checked that I can apply the
"set HEAD" series, then Jeff's changes, then this latest series all to
next w/o conflict.

I've not tried it w/o Jeff's changes in the middle.

> I see you made it cleanly apply on top of 'pu', but frankly, I really hate
> to see a series based on 'pu' as a matter of principle and discipline.
>
> Other topics in 'pu' may not be ready for a long time, and you do not want
> this series to be taken hostage to them.  Having to fork your topic off of
> many other topics not even in 'next' means it would be more cumbersome for
> me to handle your series when any of the other topics that you base your
> work on need to be discarded or replaced.

Understood. I thought this situation was a little different though due
to Jeff's changes in the middle which really build on my set HEAD
topic.

> In other words, you make your series unworkable with if you introduce too
> many dependencies.
>
> I've rebased it on top of Peff's jk/head-lookup topic (which in turn
> depends on your js/remote-set-head topic), but I suspect that you would
> want this series fork from and only depend on js/remote-set-head topic.
> In any case, please check the result after I push the results out to make
> sure that I did not make any silly mistakes while rebasing the series.

Will do, thanks.

> I also suspect that you would want to reroll the entire series anyway; see
> separate comments on 10/13 and 11/13.

I've replied to those. Would you mind applying 10/13 and 11/13
independently of this series? This topic depends on them since
otherwise there will be double-frees, but they can go anywhere before
the topic.

j.