From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Yet another builtin-fetch round Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:09:42 -0700 Message-ID: <7vsl59ly7d.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20070919044923.GP3099@spearce.org> <7v6426m110.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Shawn O. Pearce" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 20 07:09:58 2007 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 1IYEIV-0006vQ-HG for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:09:55 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752718AbXITFJu (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:09:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752714AbXITFJu (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:09:50 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:35011 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752610AbXITFJt (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:09:49 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68896136FD1; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:10:05 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <7v6426m110.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:08:43 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Daniel Barkalow writes: > >> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: >> >>> Another short series for db/fetch-pack, still in pu. Aside from >>> optimizing the pipeline on the native transport (so we only invoke >>> the remote process we need once vs. twice) I'm actually now quite >>> comfortable with this whole series and think it is ready for next. >> >> While it's still in pu, should these series of corrections be amended into >> the original series (for the ones that correct new code)? Most of the >> before-fixing states aren't worth saving as project history. > > Yeah, I was wondering if that is a sane thing to do. It is > merely additional work to arrive at the same tree state, but > might be a good investment in the longer term. Heh, I did not realize that they are now all part of 'next' so that's moot.