Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> The 14-patch series may have been internally consistent and its >> individual patches, when each of them was taken alone by itself, may >> have made sense, but it appears that the aggregated whole these >> separate topics took their root from is inconsistent with itself >> in minor ways like this here and there X-<. > > I don't follow. It's normal for an API change to affect code that > uses the API --- what inconsistency are you talking about here? I was under the impression that the purpose of the series was to propose an API update to be used together with the remainder of the system, not just "update code in master, breaking unstated set of topics and leaving them behind without updating them for now". Such a series is perfectly fine as a feeler to see if people are happy with the updated API that it does not completely cover the topics in flight, but I wouldn't have had to waste time trying to figure out what you are doing differently to cause other topics in flight to break if such a feeler series were labeled clearly as RFC/PATCH, and/or "these other topics need to be adjusted to this new API when this series settles", or somesuch. -- 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