On Thu, Feb 18 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:12:26AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>> >> 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? >>> >>> Not really. I am not sure your recent patches are getting >>> sufficient review bandwidth they deserve. >> >> FWIW, I just read through v2 (without having looked at all at v1 yet!), >> and they all seemed like quite reasonable cleanups. I left a few small >> comments that might be worth a quick re-roll, but I would also be OK >> with the patches being picked up as-is. > > That's good to hear. I shouldn't even have bothered to answer the > question, if the v2 were to have sent to the list without waiting > for my reply ;-) FWIW it's not that I didn't care about the reply, but I'm somewhat intermittently available time/network wise in the coming days. And there's the TZ difference between us. I sent v1 thinking you might be willing to pick it up & resolve the conflict, but since you expressed an interest in deferring it until conflicting work landed figured I'd ask (and then just sent the patches) if you'd be interested in a conflict-free version to queue alongside those changes. If it was still "nah" fair enough, I'd just wait. But if not those patches would be there to pickup. Thanks a lot to you & Jeff for the review on v2. I won't have time to address all that today, and in any case I got the message that maybe I should stop firehosing the list with patch series's for a bit :)
