Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:54 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> "Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > base-commit: b9a2d1a0207fb9ded3fa524f54db3bc322a12cc4 >> >> This is based on 'next', which usually is a sure way for a topic to >> stay forever out of 'next', but we have impactful dependence only on >> two topics, I think, and a good news is that both of them are in >> pretty good shape. I think Brian's part 2 of SHA-256 work should be >> on the 'master' branch soon, and Dscho's "customizable default >> branch" is also ready---it just would, like all other topics, want >> to spend at least one week on 'next' to be safe. And after that, >> this topic can be directly on 'master' (there is another trivial >> conflict around bisect--helper, but I am not worried about it), >> which looks quite good. > > ok. For the next time, I should keep basing myself on master, even if > I know there are conflicts? Right now we know there won't be and that is why I said the above. If your next round would change the code drastically, or somebody sends changes that deliberately conflicts with what you are doing to sabotage you, the situation would become different. > Do you have an opinion on > https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.665.git.1592580071.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ > ? > > There is some overlap with in sequencer.c, and Phillip's approach is > likely more principled, so I'd like to base reftable on that. I assumed that these were offered to you as possible improvements to be folded into your series, so I didn't read them very carefully and I didn't queue them myself. I expected that I would see them, possibly modified to fit the context better, as part of your series sent from you, perhaps to become a part of early clean-up portion of your topic. Thanks.
