> Just as an fyi, its usually fine to send out a path RFC Ah, this is helpful! Yes, I was still trying to get the tests to run, so consider this WIP. I have since gotten them to run and found one failure which I fixed (didn't null-check `commit`). Waiting for them to finish again, will send new patches when done. Sorry about that. > but I'm just hoping to provide you with some of the expectations we have. Thank you! I thought I'd submit the patch early so that I could get the basic design through review; I wasn't sure if I was using the right APIs for this task. I should probably write a test for this too. Looks straightforward enough. > Welcome! Take a load off and stay a while :) :) -Manish Goregaokar On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/17, Manish Goregaokar wrote: >> Oh, btw, refs.c needs an #include "worktree.h" to work; I didn't get a >> chance to test this after rebasing onto the maint branch. >> >> (There's also another fix it needs to have no warnings, but that's not >> going to affect building). I have this fixed locally, but I'll wait >> for the rest of the review before pushing them up. >> -Manish Goregaokar > > Just as an fyi, its usually fine to send out a path RFC (request for > comments) or WIP (Work in Progress) which compiles with warnings (or > maybe not at all) and which doesn't pass all tests. If you do that just > make sure to indicate as such. > > Though if you are sending out a patch which you want to be seriously > reviewed and ultimately merged then the best practice is to ensure that > it compiles without warnings and that all tests pass. I'm definitely > guilty of this occasionally (no one's perfect!) but I'm just hoping to > provide you with some of the expectations we have. > > I'm assuming you're newer to the community, so Welcome! Take a load off > and stay a while :) > > -- > Brandon Williams