On Thu, Jul 22 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> * ab/refs-files-cleanup (2021-07-20) 12 commits >>> - refs/files: remove unused "errno != ENOTDIR" condition >>> - refs/files: remove unused "errno == EISDIR" code >>> - refs/files: remove unused "oid" in lock_ref_oid_basic() >>> - reflog expire: don't lock reflogs using previously seen OID >>> - refs/files: add a comment about refs_reflog_exists() call >>> - refs: make repo_dwim_log() accept a NULL oid >>> - refs API: pass the "lock OID" to reflog "prepare" >>> - refs/debug: re-indent argument list for "prepare" >>> - refs/files: remove unused "skip" in lock_raw_ref() too >>> - refs/files: remove unused "extras/skip" in lock_ref_oid_basic() >>> - refs/files: remove unused REF_DELETING in lock_ref_oid_basic() >>> - refs/packet: add missing BUG() invocations to reflog callbacks >>> (this branch is used by hn/refs-errno-cleanup.) >>> >>> Patches are mostly good, but needs typofixes etc. >>> >>> Will merge to 'next'. >> >> Yay, thanks! > > Yikes, I shouldn't have said Will merge when I clearly said "needs > typofixes". If you are employing the strategy to wear me out and > mistakenly merge topics prematurely, it is succeeding X-<. I read this as the "needs typo..." comment referring to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-00.11-00000000000-20210716T140631Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ But it being outdated given the timing & you having picked up the v3 with those fixes in "seen": https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-00.12-00000000000-20210720T102051Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ v3 only has the discussion about the "lock OID" being passed in, which Han-Wen replied to (you and me CC'd) in saying: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAFQ2z_PuNJ_KtS_O9R2s0jdGbNNKnKdS3=_-nEu6367pteCxwA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Reftable could easily read the current OID for the reference, if necessary. Except that last lore.kernel.org link doesn't work since that reply has an HTML part. Will reply there. >>> * ab/attribute-format (2021-07-13) 5 commits >>> [...] >>> * ab/imap-send-read-everything-simplify (2021-07-07) 1 commit >>> [...] >>> * ab/pkt-line-tests (2021-07-19) 1 commit >> >> Thanks! > > Thanks for all of these. > >>> * ab/bundle-doc (2021-07-20) 3 commits >>> - bundle doc: elaborate on rev<->ref restriction >>> - bundle doc: elaborate on object prerequisites >>> - bundle doc: rewrite the "DESCRIPTION" section >>> >>> Doc update. >>> >>> Expecting a reroll. >>> at least for the second patch. > > Sorry, I think we have a reroll that updates the second one and that > is what we list here. IOW the comment is stale. >> My reading-between-the-lines of >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqsg08hhs0.fsf@gitster.g/ and >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqo8awhh5z.fsf@gitster.g/ is that you'd be >> happy toh have this be merged down in its current form, no? > > As I commented, the tip one's mention of show-ref is rather iffy. > I thought you'd be rephrasing it further in response to Philip's > "what about list-heads?" (I am not sure if it is wise to stress on > list-heads, which was a debugging aid, when ls-remote is available). > > Also, the second one talks about "object prerequisites" (I think > calling them "prerequisite objects" would be more natural, though) > and the third one uses "basis" (I take that the "bases" in "the > given bases" is used as the plural for the word), but it is not > clear to readers that these mean the same thing. If we are touching > the doc, we may want to make sure the end-result as a whole gives a > coherent narrative. Willdo, I misread the most recent discussion initially.
