On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:06:08PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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. > > As long as the two serieses are marked as such clearly, not just in > the initial round but in all subsequent rounds, it is OK. But in an > unproven initial round, you may regret having to move a patch across > topics, from the bottom one to the top one or vice versa, instead of > just reordering inside a single topic. Sounds good. Like I said, the last thing I want to do is create undue burden on your or anybody else when queuing or reviewing these topics. So, I'll try to err on the side of stating the dependency between topics too often rather than not often enough. Hopefully the first ~20 patches are boring enough that they will make their way to master soon enough and we don't have to worry about it. Ordinarily, I would have held off on the second series until more the first one had graduated, but I felt that the pure refactorings didn't make much sense on their own without the new file-based backend to motivate them. Thanks, Taylor
