Hi Emily, On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:59 PM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:52:57AM -0800, Elijah Newren wrote: > > Hi Junio, > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:07 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > >> I will push out what I wish to be able to tag as the final [*1*] > > > >> shortly but without actually tagging, so that it can get a bit wider > > > >> exposure than just the usual "Gitster tested locally and then did > > > >> let Travis try them" testing. > > > > > > > > I haven't heard from any failure report so (taking no news as good > > > > news) I'll cut the final today based on what is already on the > > > > public repositories everywhere. > > > > > > By the way, as one of the methods to double check that my result of > > > reverting the merge made sense, I ran "git rebase -ri v2.24.0 pu" > > > and excised the merge and the problematic topic out of the todo > > > list. With the rerere database populated beforehand, it was more or > > > less a painless exercise (except for one topic, en/rebase-backend, > > > which is one of the topics that was queued forking 'master' after > > > the topic got merged *and* actually depended on what the topic did) > > > and after about 1700+ steps (which did not take more than 20 > > > minutes, including the time spent for the manual rebasing of > > > en/rebase-backend topic) I got the same tree for 'pu' I pushed out > > > last night. > > > > I wonder if I should have been the one fixing up the en/rebase-backend topic... > > > > Also, with the new release and the review comments Phillip posted on > > the en/rebase-backend series, would you rather see me address those as > > additional patches on top of en/rebase-backend, or should we kick that > > topic out of next and have me send a full re-roll? I'm not sure > > what'd be better and I don't mind going either direction... > > > For what it's worth, I had started to look into one of the bugs Jonathan > Nieder reported[1] as a patch on top of en/rebase-backend topic. I'll > keep an eye on this thread; if you're interested in rerolling the whole > topic then it might be less time for you to identify the right place to > call "post-commit" than it would be for me, plus less conflict > resolution time. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200110231436.GA24315@xxxxxxxxxx/ > (bullet point 1) Ooh, that'd be great if you could fix the post-commit piece, especially since you're more familiar with the hooks in general and probably have access to the actual usecases where people are using post-commit hooks. I am planning on rerolling the topic, but I'd be happy to insert a patch authored by you into the series. Or maybe it'd be even better to just merge them as totally independent series -- I strongly doubt there would be any conflicts. I didn't touch the am codepaths in en/rebase-backend (any am codepaths I touched were submitted separately and already made it into v2.25.0), and since the resolution of the post-commit hook sounded like it should be modifying 'am' to behave like the merge/interactive backends (as per Junio's comments[2]), the fix should be orthogonal to the rest of en/rebase-backend. [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqa76sl67u.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
