Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Here is a third reroll of my series to introduce an on-disk format for the > reverse index. Since the first series (to introduce a new API) has been merged > to 'next', this series has been rebased onto 'next', too. Ehh, does that mean you are OK to see the remainder of 'next' to take this topic hostage? Unless you use some new features that came from other topics in 'next', I'd discourage such a rebasing. If the API topic gained some fix-up patches on top since it was merged to 'next', it is perfectly sensible to rebase this series on top of the updated API topic---it does not change the fact that this topic is dependent on the API topic. As it happens that the API topic is now in 'master', none of the above complaint should actually apply, even if this new round of patches do not cleanly apply to the tip of the API topic, as long as they apply cleanly to tonight's 'master'. It will make the topic ineligible to be merged later to 'maint', but this is a new feature, so nothing is lost. So, I'll try to apply them first on top of the tip of the API topic, which is at 779412b9 (for_each_object_in_pack(): clarify pack vs index ordering, 2021-01-14), and if I do not feel like spending time to resolve conflicts, I'll then try to apply them on top of tonight's master. We'll see what happens. Thanks.
