Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 06:11:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Since v6: >> > >> > - Converted 'enum hookdir_opt' to UPPER_SNAKE >> > - Coccinelle fix in the hook destructor >> > - Fixed a bug where builtin/hook.c wasn't running the default git config setup >> > and therefore missed hooks in core.hooksPath when it was set. (These hooks >> > would still run except when invoked by 'git hook run' as the config was >> > called by the processes which invoked the hook library.) >> >> Thanks. Queued both series (it probably is easier to think of these >> as a single 34-patch series, as long as they both are in flight at >> the same time). >> > > Do you want me to send them as a single thread for next version? Unless we deliberately focus on stabilizing the early 17 patches into a shape that they won't need updating while working on the later part of the series, I'd guess that your next resend would contain updated versions of these 17 patches, so the only effect that it has to pretend that the patches belong to two separate series is to invite mistakes while queuing on my part. So either (1) a single thread of all patches, or (2) just the early part to really make sure everybody is happy with them, so that we can graduate it early even while the remainder may be going through revisions, would be more preferrable than the way they have been structured so far. Thanks.
