Re: [PATCH 00/21] replacement for dt/refs-backend-lmdb v7 patch 04/33

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:05 PM, David Turner <dturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

By 18/21 you mean
[PATCH 18/21] get_default_remote(): remove unneeded flag variable
in builtin/submodule--helper.c?
You could drop that and I'll pick it up in one of the submodule series',
if that is more convenient for you.


>
> 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
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]