On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> ... >>> * jh/gitweb-caching (2010-11-01) 4 commits >>> - gitweb: Minimal testing of gitweb caching >>> - gitweb: File based caching layer (from git.kernel.org) >>> - gitweb: add output buffering and associated functions >>> - gitweb: Prepare for splitting gitweb >>> (this branch uses jn/gitweb-test.) >> >>> * jn/gitweb-test (2010-09-26) 4 commits >>> (merged to 'next' on 2010-11-05 at 90b3adf) >>> + gitweb/Makefile: Include gitweb/config.mak >>> + gitweb/Makefile: Add 'test' and 'test-installed' targets >>> + t/gitweb-lib.sh: Add support for GITWEB_TEST_INSTALLED >>> + gitweb: Move call to evaluate_git_version after evaluate_gitweb_config >>> (this branch is used by jh/gitweb-caching.) >> >> These two branches have simple to resolve but non-trivial conflict. >> Should I rebase 'jh/gitweb-caching' on top of 'jn/gitweb-test' then, >> resolving this conflict? > > In general, when a conflict between topic A and B is simple to resolve > (and I have the correct resolution already in 'pu'), I'd rather prefer to > keep topic A independent of topic B than rebasing topic A on top of topic > B, unless topic A is far from ready and topic B is truly ready and about > to graduate, so that we can leave a door open for A to graduate before B > does (or vice versa). > > In this case, I think it is overdue (iow, sorry I've been slow) for the > gitweb-test topic to graduate, so the separation does not really matter. I have send version of 'gitweb: Prepare for splitting gitweb' that applies cleanly on top of "gitweb/Makefile: Add 'test' and 'test-installed' targets" as "[PATCHv7.1b 1/4] gitweb: Prepare for splitting gitweb" http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/160492 But you probably don't have this in 'pu'. Resolving of conflict is straighforward, but non-trivial, and consist of two parts: * textual conflict caused by adding extra stuff in place where context is - simple to resolve * adding support for testing installed version of modules, in the future if/when we add tests of individual modules (I use this in my rewrite of gitweb caching) - non-trivial >> BTW. this would allow me to improve 'gitweb: Minimal testing of gitweb >> caching'. > > Then I probably should leave gitweb-caching out of 'next' when gitweb-test > graduates to master so that you can refresh the caching series. Thanks > for a heads-up. In short: code responsible for turning caching on was duplicated in t9500 and t9502 (will be moved to t/gitweb-lib.sh), and code path with die_error (e.g. 404 not found case) was not tested. I'll try to send re-roll (rebased and improved) tomorrow (on Friday). -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- 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