On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:27 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > This patch series is based on: > > > > 763fb763b8 (Merge branch 'jt/batch-fetch-blobs-in-diff' into jch, 2019-04-08) > > > > to avoid issues with jt/batch-fetch-blobs-in-diff. > > Yuck. As an experienced contributor, you should know better than > that by now to do that. A merge into jch/pu are rebuilt at least > once and often three times a day, and in no way a good solid base > to build on top. Sorry if it creates problems. > If you really need to depend on another topic or two, please base > your work on a merge between 'master' (or some well known ancestor > of it) and the tips of the topics instead. Ok I will do that then. > Having said that, I thought that the semantic conflict has been > corrected and the machinery to rebuild 'pu' has been replaying the > correct resolution ever since, so there was no need for such a > rebase? Isn't it the case and do we still have the breakage due to > semantic conflict with JTan's topic in 'pu'? There is one patch in the series, Patch 8/16 (diff: use promisor-remote.h instead of fetch-object.h), that fix the breakage, so if the series is applied on top of jt/batch-fetch-blobs-in-diff, it will apply correctly and if it is not applied on top of jt/batch-fetch-blobs-in-diff then the patch can just be dropped and everything else will apply correctly. I thought that it might be better to make the fix explicit than to rely on the rebuild machinery.
