On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> On 03/09, Valery Tolstov wrote: >>>>> Remove code fragment from module_clone that duplicates functionality >>>>> of connect_work_tree_and_git_dir in dir.c >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Valery Tolstov <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Looks good. >>> >>> I'll queue with your Reviewed-by: added. >>> >>> If sb/checkout-recurse-submodules is going to be rerolled, I'd >>> appreciate if it includes this patch inserted at an appropriate >>> place in the series, instead of me having to remember re-applying >>> this patch every time it happens. >> >> Instead of mixing these two series, can you just take Valerys series as is, >> and sb/checkout-recurse-submodules builds on top of that when rerolled? > > That's fine by me, too, but that still means I need to keep an eye > on two independent topics that interact each other. Is a single > patch 2/2 that important to be on a separate topic? Expressed in > another way, is it expected that sb/checkout-recurse-submodules > would take forever to mature relative to these two patches? Using the times and number of rerolls this has been around, it is a not unreasonable to estimate sb/checkout-... will take longer than this code deduplication patch. Thanks, Stefan