From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE992223DFB for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2025 18:24:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.156 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754331868; cv=none; b=E48GmumJGJmCj5jwUwipMuL3T6wG+Z1KHqZxG6zS2OHONUBprJ9fE7FcYZL7yRI05Dz59xTAzW85FJGdBoU/shrhsrewiorUPevSndOekgL+kR9QqhNymYYpK5uErlCD1lr/5SYsN9pHAA1N2skIHx0lveDayYXa08OOXI1ApEY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754331868; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MRzIA7vTa8XwqjkEUuh7svFilcVBAWFtR2u1hKvRWNY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ZOML1BlYjAEUaobZ2yaOApYc5ga0UsIB5swBv2ZDt3YjJ+yZShhdI7JdffqhVAGWFzPOcaQI+VrOxBgTQnTTcPy3MgjoDzEIIdj1Y56DWZn6kY2OWn1D3W7/tQKiOxBft5YI3uU5oK/1qrdilVUMsfIdBhtP8KK4itzfu47BMls= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=PGZYDxF4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=Bb6vPHd/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.156 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="PGZYDxF4"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="Bb6vPHd/" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.phl.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B300D7A019A; Mon, 4 Aug 2025 14:24:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 04 Aug 2025 14:24:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1754331864; x=1754418264; bh=mrVVquq/76 CraeaxXQVQN4ozd7QrnMpn16V6XGPfFA8=; b=PGZYDxF40Q7NCcFxYzLzU+Lv7K qe0MaxB1NfeItHcUuX53qUIhYM2kX+mS+JRjWPP5Wzp6zYIqrK/EGk2Oa8E0YVjL Sy37emJTTC4sNkdmfXnngcl1mefc2SbpddFxe+BmGuVZcqwUJeZy3h1JvdRiRrIS NqUDS9OCnctazmGiEjUNCd3zJJNiaA4fZKB8C/Am7CTiVOyvA5RvNS4hDL54EiJ1 cyIigM9b99Y8eBNytegSNIy9tPEImRpb9sqeHUQcOCOvoARaPMIVZC2B8Fis1Fdq K1EoaC3n9iRbGC2o6pUgJ8mUDb35nU5z2gWyKnR2VixI29EAiizAopLBIPIA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1754331864; x=1754418264; bh=mrVVquq/76CraeaxXQVQN4ozd7QrnMpn16V 6XGPfFA8=; b=Bb6vPHd/jwnQhdr8xNfD5v5r1xpSjM1gHRf90OPYqOEYHzt3MWh 17tBNeDT53JsHp6CnXcdPb8NPL7kMiRYS+ALUsRoMYMW4qrlmAIgHdHsC4Ky6h82 0wxNjvISFUGgOfCe42V0McF1BqhI2HMXOvCudFI2L1bHedHJ7nz/eT3VGln5wUQ1 2C6NMWEQwaOGEP9A3Tn15jlL8FoZggczta5CbzdpqZeS+a5Tz3TB5Wl+Mdpo7QiD iWBIu/Ji2p8LmA8K521vSRFfG/wNwrF3ybtIy03a0qbIQsMyu+RCXo1u/f1KIpVY 9QJF1ZHttlAEAakiC+uT6wDzBLzlUTfYMaQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdefgdduudeftddtucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepjedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtse hvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepphgvfhhfsehpvghffhdrnhgv thdprhgtphhtthhopehjhhgtrghrlhdtkedugeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtth hopehjlhhtohgslhgvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehkrghrthhhihhk rddukeeksehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogi drtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 4 Aug 2025 14:24:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Han Jiang , Justin Tobler , Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] builtin/remote: rework how remote refs get renamed In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Mon, 4 Aug 2025 08:51:32 +0200") References: <20250728-pks-remote-rename-improvements-v1-0-f654f2b5c5ae@pks.im> <20250731-pks-remote-rename-improvements-v2-0-dda6f083674d@pks.im> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2025 11:24:22 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Patrick Steinhardt writes: > There shouldn't be any textual conflicts between these two series. What I meant was this. This series is built on top of an older iteration of the other series. The other series however has a newer iteration. We would eventually want to both topics in the system, so as an early preview, both would be merged to 'seen'. The topic branch for the other series has patches from iteration vN+1. The topic branch for this series is, since it is built on top of the merge of the other series at iteration vN into 'master'. We merge the former into 'seen'; we now have patches from the other series at iteration vN+1. We then merge the latter into 'seen'. It wants to _also_ merge the patches from the other series at iteration vN, that duplicates vN+1 but in different ways. If there wouldn't be any textual conflicts between vN and vN+1 of the other series, it may resolve cleanly, but is the result sane? These two iterations are trying to be moral equivalents, with the difference that the newer iteration is trying to be better than the older one. And they in practice are most likely to textually conflict with each other. After all they are different iteration of the same topic.