On Wed, Feb 17 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Jonathan Tan pointed out that the fsck error_func doesn't pass you the
>> ID of the fsck failure in [1]. This series improves the API so it
>> does, and moves the gitmodules_{found,done} variables into the
>> fsck_options struct.
>>
>> The result is that instead of the "print_dangling_gitmodules" member
>> in that series we can just implement that with the diff at the end of
>> this cover letter (goes on top of a merge of this series & "seen"),
>> and without any changes to fsck_finish().
>>
>> This conflicts with other in-flight fsck changes but the conflict is
>> rather trivial. Jeff King has another concurrent series to add a
>> couple of new fsck checks, those need to be moved to fsck.h, and
>> there's another trivial conflict in 2 hunks due to the
>> gitmodules_{found,done} move.
>>
>> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/87blcja2ha.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Let's get this reviewed now, but with expectation that it will be
> rebased after the dust settles.
Makes sense. Pending a review of this would you be interested in queuing
a v2 of this that doesn't conflict with in-flight topics?
Patches 01..09 & 13/14 can live conflict-free with what's in "seen" now
(I'd have made the 13th the 10th in v1 if I'd noticed). Then I could
re-roll the remainder of this once the other topics land.
