Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:17 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [New Topics] >> ... >> * en/ort-perf-batch-11 (2021-03-25) 7 commits >> - merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible >> - merge-ort: add helper functions for using cached renames >> - merge-ort: preserve cached renames for the appropriate side >> - merge-ort: avoid accidental API mis-use >> - merge-ort: add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused >> - merge-ort: populate caches of rename detection results >> - merge-ort: add data structures for in-memory caching of rename detection >> (this branch uses en/ort-perf-batch-10, en/ort-perf-batch-9 and en/ort-readiness.) > > I was actually slightly surprised you picked this one up this early > given the other three in-flight. As I always say, don't read too much into being in 'seen'. I can try queuing them only to see how bad a conflict I should anticipate when the time comes and forget to remove it by mistake. >> [Cooking] > ... >> * en/ort-perf-batch-10 (2021-03-18) 8 commits >> - diffcore-rename: determine which relevant_sources are no longer relevant >> - merge-ort: record the reason that we want a rename for a file >> - diffcore-rename: add computation of number of unknown renames >> - diffcore-rename: check if we have enough renames for directories early on >> - diffcore-rename: only compute dir_rename_count for relevant directories >> - merge-ort: record the reason that we want a rename for a directory >> - merge-ort, diffcore-rename: tweak dirs_removed and relevant_source type >> - diffcore-rename: take advantage of "majority rules" to skip more renames >> (this branch is used by en/ort-perf-batch-11 and en/ort-readiness; uses en/ort-perf-batch-9.) >> >> I made a mistake of picking these up before they got sufficient >> exposure to the reviewers and ended up a source of potential mess >> when it turns out that any of the earlier ones need rewriting (I > > Um...are you by chance conflating my comments linked above on > ort-perf-batch-11, the very latest series, with this series? No, I did mean the comment on this topic, and the readiness one that depends on it. While -9 is not yet in 'next', having three interdependent topics on top of it is just asking for reviewer fatigue, and that picking up this topic was the beginning of the issue. I should probably have waited for one more cycle and spent my time more on making sure -9 was in good shape and merge it down to 'next' before touching them.
