On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> Highlevel view of the patches in the series >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> >>>> This is "part 3" of the full patch series. I am resending only the >>>> last 14 patches of the full series as "part 3", because I don't want >>>> to resend the first 27 patches of v10 nearly as is. >>> >>> Just to make sure, you are sending the first 11 of these 14 exactly >>> as-is, right? I didn't spot anything different other than 12 and 13 >>> that replaced the "alternate index" step from the previous round. >> >> Yeah, the first 11 of the 14 patches have no change compared to v12. >> I didn't want to create a "part 4" as that could be confusing, and >> sending the first 11 patches gives them another chance to be reviewed >> again. > > Hmph. > > But most likely, you made sure that those who _could_ review the > first 11 are miniscule minority by omitting the earlier steps before > these 14 patches -- unless they are familiar with them, the first 11 > patches are not much use to them. And those who are familiar have > already seen the first 11, too. That was why I wondered who the > target audience was when seeing only the last 14, among which 11 of > them were identical to the previous. Following Stefan's review, it looks like I will need to resend at least 02/14, 10/14 and 14/14. What do you prefer me to resend: 1) all the last 40 or so patches 2) the last 14 patches 3) only the few patches that changed ?