On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 06:36:43PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Ah; my apologies. I thought that rebasing onto next would make it easier for you to merge this topic, but after reading what you wrote I can see that's not the case. The only dependency that this topic should have is on the API one, which I am glad to see in 'master'. > 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. I'm happy to send another version based on 'master', but I expect that this should apply cleanly either way. > Thanks. Thanks, Taylor
