On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 03:14:28PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> That's this one > >> > >> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 19:13:06 -0700 (1 week, 3 hours, 23 minutes ago) > >> Subject: [PATCH v2 0/7] harden unexpected object types checks > >> > >> which I think is what has been queued and what is listed in the > >> message you are responding to. > > > > Ah, perhaps you could clarify some confusion I have about the "What's > > Cooking" emails (or at least point me somewhere I could un-confuse > > myself). > > > > This topic is in the "Cooking" section with a "-" (which I recall means > > that it's in 'pu'), but there is no "Will merge to ..." line below it > > from you. > > > > That makes sense to me, but I'm not sure whether or not that means it's > > queued. Do you say that a topic is queued once it's on your pu, or once > > you have written "Will merge to..."? > > > > Thanks in advance for your clarification. > > Hmph, I guess I shouldn't use the verb "queue" if it implies a lot > more than there is to it. I create a topic branch out of a patch > series on the list at some point in the iteration of a series and > merge it to 'pu'; I can say "I queued the topic to 'pu'" after doing > so. The verb to me does not mean anything more than that. I thought that there was much more to it than it seems there actually is. Thank you for clarifying what is meant here. > The fact that a topic is queued on 'pu' does not mean much. It can > be taken as a sign "Gitster thought that it may become 'next' worthy > material, either as-is or with further polishing and replacing." This matches my understanding that 'pu' is a precursor for 'next' and so on. > Once a topic gets discussed on list and it seems apparent that there > is a concensus that supports it, I may mark the topic as "Will merge > to 'next'" in the What's cooking report, but I may not realize that > the list already reached such a concensus and may leave it unmarked > in the report. > > So "this has been battle tested in such and such environment" and/or > "this round was reviwed by the thread here and they were supportive" > etc. is a very appreciated response to the "what's cooking" report > to help me merge the topic down to 'next'. That's quite helpful to know in the future. For this topic in particular, we've been running a nearly-identical version of it at GitHub for a couple of weeks now. It went out smoothly, and hasn't caused any trouble since. (In fact, quite the opposite: it fixed the bug that caused me to look into this in the first place. That is, the repository that SIGSEV'd after a `git rev-list --all --objects` no longer does). So, for clarity I think that this can be considered "battle-tested" and ready to merge onto next. > "I have sent a reroll at ..." I typically hear when I miss a > rerolled version and what is listed is still from an old iteration, > hence my "Eh, you are pointing at what I have queued" reaction. Understood, and thank you again :-). > Thanks. Thanks, Taylor
