2010/4/6 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hi, > > Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for posting this series. I had not read it in full before. > > The series is very long and it is hard to make certain it does not > introduce regressions. Here is my idea for working around this: the > idea is to grab patches from the series to form short, independently > justifiable mini-series. Once most of the functional changes are > merged, it should be a lot easier to evaluate the core code change > that makes setup more brittle (which I like a lot). > > What do you think? Is it worth the trouble? I don't know. There are few independent patches like this. Most of them will need startup_info struct, introduced in 01/43. I splitted the series in two parts, with hope that the first (simpler) part could graduate early. But as you pointed out, even the first part introduced a regression. Anyway if you want to pick them out, candidates are: - 19-20/43: calculate prefix anyway and remove the hack in index-pack - 22-23/43: moving enter_repo(). This makes enter_repo() more consistent with setup_git_dir*, no real gain. - 24/43: the bug only exposes when set_git_dir() is used extensively in setup_git_dir*, so this patch alone seems useless. So that's 7 patches shorter if all of them are sent independently. -- Duy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html