On Thu, Sep 30 2021, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 6:09 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> * en/removing-untracked-fixes (2021-09-27) 12 commits >> - Documentation: call out commands that nuke untracked files/directories >> - Comment important codepaths regarding nuking untracked files/dirs >> - unpack-trees: avoid nuking untracked dir in way of locally deleted file >> - unpack-trees: avoid nuking untracked dir in way of unmerged file >> - Change unpack_trees' 'reset' flag into an enum >> - Remove ignored files by default when they are in the way >> - unpack-trees: make dir an internal-only struct >> - unpack-trees: introduce preserve_ignored to unpack_trees_options >> - read-tree, merge-recursive: overwrite ignored files by default >> - checkout, read-tree: fix leak of unpack_trees_options.dir >> - t2500: add various tests for nuking untracked files >> - Merge branch 'en/am-abort-fix' into en/removing-untracked-fixes >> >> Various fixes in code paths that move untracked files away to make room. >> >> Will merge to 'next'? > > Phillip (Wood) just recently acked the series[1]. > > Ævar made multiple good suggestions on an earlier round that I > incorporated. A few others commented as well and I incorporated each > or responded why it didn't make sense, I believe to the individuals' > satisfaction. > > However, on the latest series, Ævar has tried to suggest some changes > around the 'dir' member that he seems to want to see squashed in. > There's multiple reasons I don't like those changes, and even if we > ended up adopting them, I think they'd need a separate commit with a > good explanation of the assumptions being added by those changes[2]. > I think such a change, if others want it, could and likely should be > submitted separately from this series. And I suspect he's struggling > just as hard to see my point of view as I am to see his. > > So...maybe I reroll the series with Phillip's Acked-by, and give it a > few days to see if either Ævar or I can convince the other? > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/b23bb983-39e6-75ad-0cb5-d9a5ba2cd4d8@xxxxxxxxx/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGi03JunRaMF_8SJKC00byOnq1kL3JyYhKWatz8-B4RsA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ A tl;dr of the relevant reply from me[1] is that I'm fine with this being merged down as-is. As noted I should have been clearer from the beginning, it was really a "oh interesting, on my larger topic of memory leaks I did XYZ differently" than "your XYZ here needs to be an ABC". Should the "ABC" be worthwhile I can submit that on top. I did suggest in [1] that maybe the question of "ABC" v.s. "XYZ" would be better dealt with in some other series, i.e. just ejecting (if possible) the memory leak fixes while at it from this larger mostly-unrelated topic. But again, I'll leave whether you'd like to do that to your judgement after you've caught up on mail. 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/87k0ixrv23.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
