Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > If you have a preference for which patch series you would like to > integrate in which order (and especially if you think that there are > gaps that need to be filled), please let me know. It would be a lot > less work to put them in the right order from the start rather than > trying to keep them all synchronized with master and continually reroll > them based on what you have merged so far. I've re-read mh/ref-api-[23] a few times myself during this feature-freeze period and found that the checks they enforce seemed to be sensible for newly created refs. But I do not know if there are widespread mispractices of using "wrong" refnames, created by either older versions of Git and common third-party ones, that may make existing repository unusable without first correcting them, and more importantly, I do not know if the updated code is lenient enough to give users necessary escape hatches to correct the existing problems. As we recently found out on the 'master' front for your earlier topic, an updated check that is more strict and saner than the older one is not necessarily an improvement, if it causes pain to existing users to adjust to the new world order. The output frm "git log --oneline --first-parent master..pu" should give rough idea of what I have in mind. Obvious and nonintrusive clean-ups come early, then features that are shown to be needed in the field and are with user-facing design that are perfected come next to give them longer time to fix potential issues in implemementation, followed by all the rest. -- 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