From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CCE4C77B73 for ; Mon, 1 May 2023 22:19:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232632AbjEAWTE (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 May 2023 18:19:04 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55916 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229664AbjEAWTC (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 May 2023 18:19:02 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26A54EC for ; Mon, 1 May 2023 15:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-24782fdb652so2103267a91.3 for ; Mon, 01 May 2023 15:19:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682979541; x=1685571541; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id :in-reply-to:date:references:subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=walX/U/8EyMdKqsr+yvttpGeTNIcTCxAu+hXQRlKhKw=; b=p7l5SNBg8U1Dr66TSvL47j8q2OQTRWfCmcyW2/1sJLxk7Bv9WEA1X6YBLNQLCoWiys 96nzgPPP631rLx1siQinsTimeMyUmR4GTf/8K2t8aLa5/brTdDlExK7ll1auSiUZc3pi ql46W05m5PfJzZEnVmUS45SXFfxgdMvChrOxt8DZncGNO4BCPQI0qBp688pH0iOmVkFa qwwgskKPejpzQqfuXONaj9LlMrwYzfMKjjrg0BqDls6FsikWtmcta35QxeKPqJdeffdc W3Pf+QEyQa/qCArX688zZvcAvkpj3gwJe83sjihGJie62ZjF7dSs5B3JngJ7C+ViPii9 ndKQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682979541; x=1685571541; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id :in-reply-to:date:references:subject:cc:to:from:sender :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=walX/U/8EyMdKqsr+yvttpGeTNIcTCxAu+hXQRlKhKw=; b=grwctm2YLkX7A0Oj6dewHUUgVOy/W+b77LdWq8Y9TpeM4xfMGI1holXms6pe9xj3+5 ONXPyCTHWlBwkyzrcnhLnBlXsDUe9sGTqPe3c0EfC2Ce6zZAv3xb1FwueS1D3ucliZlf cUdwDMQsMhLUNRUI2J3zP8rBXQllKfqxvGbEpxNgrE+zd44tpYx3ewxmOphpcOANzJag 7iko0i+TPTZfcPuZt29YF0F3YA5579LxF8Z48he2BsofVWR3ee1JMsYl21lK4RjUax6h O4VlGNMLWCOzO/HM5t5LW7bm2sgh9VGFoeKns6SE0nZ4ZpMoXp3QsbeKXbpraAr5Rvg0 BxTA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzBV3WepvlPWRQgkdrFoAegyunyEc0WrlWKCnqGcuhOG8nAn7RR KeFVjWjh/ooBzeKzssrDhuc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6U9Kxq8YZBBIAh0kptcooZsG4TQcU9whsDR/E68dbJIxgSMJj08AnNUgFHNs09qqmonjOpoQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:11cc:b0:1ab:5b3:9664 with SMTP id q12-20020a17090311cc00b001ab05b39664mr1801386plh.41.1682979541497; Mon, 01 May 2023 15:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (187.137.203.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.203.137.187]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d11-20020a170902cecb00b001aaff9be643sm1545748plg.89.2023.05.01.15.19.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 01 May 2023 15:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?Q?Rub=C3=A9n?= Justo Cc: Git List , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Jonathan Tan Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] branch: operations on orphan branches References: <34a58449-4f2e-66ef-ea01-119186aebd23@gmail.com> <2193a4ed-b263-068e-92f8-847dcb053f8c@gmail.com> <139555f1-21ab-d987-a58e-c7f04ce222d3@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 15:19:00 -0700 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Rub=C3=A9n?= Justo"'s message of "Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:19:36 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Rubén Justo writes: > The initial and main intention in this series is to avoid some confusing > errors operating with orphan branches, when working with worktrees. > ... > In this iteration, v5, I've reverted some of those major refactorings, > mainly the inlining, because it ended up introducing unnecessary > complexity for minimal benefit in this series. Maybe those refactorings > make more sense in future series. > > A new test has been introduced, in 1/5, to notice if a behavior change > similar to that observed in v4, is reintroduced in the future. > > Other than that, no functional changes are expected from v2. This has not seen any activities since it was posted; presumably the issues raised during the review of the previous round have all been addressed? Is everybody happy to see us declare victory and merge it down to 'next'? I see everybody who commented on earlier iterations of the series are CC'ed, so let's hear from them (and others who may be interested). Thanks.