Re: [PATCH 2/5] add object-cache infrastructure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Actually I do not think identifying the ones that can safely skipped is
> such a big issue. The case I am most concerned about is when you see that
> "two reverted back to one" (which you obviously want to avoid, to keep the
> effect of the commit the upstream has to have "two" on that line), but at
> the same time ...

It is even worse if you do not necessarily agree with that "two", which
you might originally have written "t w o". You _still_ want to keep the
version from the upstream (i.e. leaving the result as "two") while
replaying the patch that adds "one" (and correcting the change upstream
did to make it "modified one"), and when it is the "t w o" patch's turn,
you would want to do the same dance to make an incremental correction to
the way the upstream butchered your original change.
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]