On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 18:14 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > On 03/30/2016 10:05 PM, David Turner wrote: > > 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? > > Yes, that's fine. Patch 18/21 is just a random cleanup that nothing > else > depends on. Will you do the rebasing? If so, please let me know where > I > can fetch the result from. Rebased: https://github.com/dturner-tw/git.git on branch dturner/pluggable-backends -- 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