On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 08:13:57AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:21:12AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > If you agree that the bottom topic is stable, I'd prefer to send the top > > > one separately. Otherwise, I can send both together. Let me know. > > > > I do not expect the first 20 of the 20+8 patches to be stable from > > the beginning---in fact, after reading 01/20 myself, and seeing a > > few of Peff's reviews, I expect that you'll be redoing at least some > > of them. > > They'll definitely need at least one re-roll. But I think Taylor is > expecting (and I do too) that the second half will probably have a lot > more back-and-forth over the on-disk format, and hence need more > re-rolls. Indeed, I find the first ~20 patches fairly benign, and I think that the interesting discussion will and should take place over the final 8 patches. For what it's worth, I was referring to the pending re-roll I have of the first 20 patches as the stable one. (Peff notes in [1] that he thought there wasn't much else to consider beyond his comments.) > My main concern is reviewer fatigue. 28 patches is a lot. If we can > solidify the first 20 and then let people focus on the final 8 > separately, that helps. If you're OK with splitting a topic and saying > "this is a re-roll of just the last 8 patches", then that problem is > solved. But IMHO it is easier to just point out that split from the > start than it is to come up with it after the fact. It tells reviewers > what to expect from the get-go. Yes, exactly. > > That way, the bottom part can be merged sooner to 'next' than the > > rest. It always is cumbersome to have some part of the series in > > 'next' and remainder in 'seen', so at that point, the lower half > > would naturally gain a different name before it gets merged to > > 'next', I would think. > > That seems to me like it ends up being _more_ work than just making them > into two branches in the first place. I agree, but I also wasn't aware that you would consider queuing part of a series. If that's the route you want to take, I'm OK with that. But I tend to agree with Peff that (in this case since a clear deliniation already exists) it may save us time to just send two separate series from the get-go. > So I guess I remain skeptical that ad-hoc splitting of longer series is > easier than doing so up front. But you're the one who does all of the > branch shuffling in the end, so if you really prefer longer series, I'm > not what I think matters that much. ;) Agreed. Junio, let me know which you'd prefer in this case (I'm not sure if the additional context has changed your mind or not). > -Peff Thanks, Taylor [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/X%2F1vy3D10wDEZNva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
