On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 08:37 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > On 03/29/2016 10:12 PM, David Turner wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 07:22 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > > On 03/24/2016 07:47 AM, David Turner wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > I incorporated your changes into the lmdb backend. To make > > > > merging > > > > later more convenient, I rebased on top of pu -- I think this > > > > mainly > > > > depends on jk/check-repository-format, but I also included some > > > > fixes > > > > for a couple of tests that had been changed by other patches. > > > > > > I think rebasing changes on top of pu is counterproductive. I > > > believe > > > that Junio had extra work rebasing your earlier series onto a > > > merge > > > of > > > the minimum number of topics that it really depended on. There is > > > no > > > way > > > that he could merge the branch in this form because it would > > > imply > > > merging all of pu. > > > > > > See the zeroth section of SubmittingPatches [1] for the > > > guidelines. > > > > I'm a bit confused because > > [PATCH 18/21] get_default_remote(): remove unneeded flag variable > > > > doesn't do anything on master -- it depends on some patch in pu. > > And > > we definitely want to pick up jk/check-repository-format (which > > doesn't > > include whatever 18/21 depends on). > > > > So what do you think our base should be? > > I think the preference is to base a patch series on the merge of > master > plus the minimum number of topics in pu (ideally, none) that are > "essential" prerequisites of the changes in the patch series. For > example, the version of this patch series that Junio has in his tree > was > based on master + sb/submodule-parallel-update. > > Even if there are minor > conflicts with another in-flight topic, it is easier for Junio to > resolve the conflicts when merging the topics together than to rebase > the patch series over and over as the other patch series evolves. The > goal of this practice is of course to allow patch series to evolve > independently of each other as much as possible. > > Of course if you have insights into nontrivial conflicts between your > patch series and others, it would be helpful to discuss these in your > cover letter. If I am reading this correctly, it looks like your series also has a few more sb submodule patches, e.g. sb/submodule-init, which is responsible for the code that 18/21 depends on. I think jk/check-repository-format is also good to get in first, because it changes the startup sequence a bit and it's a bit tricky to figure out what needs to change in dt/refs-backend-lmdb as a result of it. But I can't just merge jk/check-repository-format on top of 71defe0047 -- some function signatures have changed in the run-command stuff and it seems kind of annoying to fix up. So I propose instead that we just drop 18/21 for now, and use just jk/check-repository-format as the base. Does this seem reasonable to you? -- 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