On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Patches 01-19 -- ACK mhagger >> Patches 20-42 -- I sent various comments, small to large, concerning >> these patches >> Patch 43 -- Needs more justification if it is to be acceptable >> Patch 44 -- Depends on 43 >> Patches 45-48 -- I didn't quite get to these, but... >> >> Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the rules about reference name >> conflicts to be enforced by the backend, since it is the limitations of >> the current backend that impose the restrictions. Would that make sense? >> >> On the other hand, removing the restrictions isn't simply a matter of >> picking a different backend, because all Git repositories have to be >> able to interact with each other. > > I'd say that "if you have foo/bar you cannot have foo" may have > started as an implementation limitation, but the interoperability > requirement with existing versions of Git and with existing > repositories makes it necessary to enforce it the same way as other > rules such as "you cannot have double-dots in name, e.g. foo..bar" > or "no branches whose name begins with a dash", neither of which > comes from any filesystem issues. That a rule can be loosened with > one new backend does not at all mean it is a good idea to loosen it > "because we can" in the first place. ACK. > >> I think it would be good to try to merge the first part of this patch >> series to lock in some progress while we continue iterating on the >> remainder. I'm satisfied that it is all going in the right direction >> and I am thankful to Ronnie for pushing it forward. But handling >> 48-patch series is very daunting and I would welcome a split. >> >> I'm not sure whether patches 01-19 are necessarily the right split >> between merge-now/iterate-more; it is more or less an accident that I >> stopped after patch 19 on an earlier review. Maybe Ronnie could propose >> a logical subset of the commits as being ready to be merged to next in >> the nearish term? > > Yeah, thanks for going through this, and I agree that we would be > better off merging the earlier part first. > Ok, 01-19 is as good split as any. If you merge just the 01-19 part of this series I will address Michael's concerns and repost patches 20-48 as a separate series. regards ronnie sahlberg -- 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