Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 02/09/2015 08:05 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> [...] >>>> This patch series applies on top of master merged together with >>>> sb/atomic-push, which in turn depends on mh/reflog-expire. >>> >>> I am a bit puzzled by your intentions, so help me out. >>> >>> I see that your understanding is that Stefan will be rerolling the >>> push atomicity thing; wouldn't we then want to have a "fix and >>> clean" topic like this one first and build the push atomicity thing >>> on top instead? >> >> My understanding is to not reroll origin/sb/atomic-push, but >> origin/sb/atomic-push-fix (which is worded misleading. It is not about >> atomic pushes, but about enabling large transactions in my understanding) > > Yes, that is what I thought. > ... > Both series have to do with reflogs, but they are logically pretty > independent. In particular, "Fix some problems with reflog expiration" > fixes problems that existed before mh/reflog-expire. And considering > that one topic is quite mature whereas the the other is just making its > debut, it seemed like yoking them together would slow down the first > topic for no good reason. > ... > I expected that mh/reflog-expire and sb/atomic-push would be merged > pretty early in the 2.4 cycle (they are both in next already). Junio, is > that not your plan? OK, I am glad I asked for clarifications. It was that I felt uneasy to see many new "this cleans and fixes" while there are in-flight topics in the same area. Thanks. -- 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