From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v7 0/5] git checkout: optimise away lots of lstat() calls Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:17:48 -0800 Message-ID: <7viqoj6jv7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1231849748-8244-1-git-send-email-barvik@broadpark.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Pete Harlan , Linus Torvalds To: Kjetil Barvik X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 13 21:19:28 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LMpjM-0005eG-El for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:19:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755162AbZAMUR5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:17:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755145AbZAMUR5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:17:57 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:58408 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755057AbZAMUR4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:17:56 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E09F90514; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:17:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33DB390511; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:17:50 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1231849748-8244-1-git-send-email-barvik@broadpark.no> (Kjetil Barvik's message of "Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:29:03 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4325F360-E1AF-11DD-85E2-5720C92D7133-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Kjetil Barvik writes: > Junio, I hope it is possible to use patches 1/5, 2/5 and 3/5 from this > version instead of 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3 from version 6, for the possible > future in origin/pu? See also a) above. Thanks in advance! > > In general, are we allowed to redesign the patch-series while the > patches is inside origin/pu? You won't be too far off if you thought of 'pu' branch nothing more than my bookmarks into the list archive. They are interesting enough to keep an eye on their evolution but not yet stable enough to go into initial round of wider testing and incremental development which starts to happen when they hit 'next'. So yes, while you are not yet confident that the series does not need major redesign, please keep sending replacements (not incremental updates), making it clear that you still have reservations and I'll keep them in 'pu', until the initial barrage of "Oh, I think this way is better", "The previous review comments were valuable, and this round contains all of them" is over and things seem to stabilize into a testable shape. Personally I felt your v5 and later ones were already 'next' material, and the only reason why the series haven't landed on 'next' was because you kept sending updates before I sat down in the evening and said "Ok, this looks good---let's merge it to 'next'". Instead I ended up saying "Hmph, I thought it looked good already but the author seems not satisfied yet; there is another round of update to replace the previous one. Let's queue it in 'pu', as it may be updated again, and I have to also look at series from other people.' ;-)