On Tue, Oct 05 2021, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 10:47:26PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > * ab/fsck-unexpected-type (2021-10-01) 17 commits >> [...] >> Note that Jeff's just-submitted cat-file series[3] will conflict with >> this, as they both adjust the same "garbage" object tests. The semantic >> conflict is minimal/none, but the textual one is probably annoying >> (e.g. his 1/5 uses a variable I split/renamed). >> >> Jeff: Depending on what Junio thinks of queuing ab/fsck-unexpected-type >> for next what do you think about rebasing your series on top, or perhaps >> take a look at the v10[4] of it/ack it in case that helps with that (since >> you've been looking at some related code just now...). > > The conflict is pretty easy to resolve: just keep my new cleanup tests, > but swap out the variable name. The combined diff is below for > reference (this is more readable than a remerge diff, but I guess a > remerge diff could actually be applied). > > I don't mind rebasing on top if that's easier for Junio, but in that > case it may make sense to float the test cleanup to the front of the > series. > > I can also just change mine to do the --batch-all-objects tests in a > separate repository (which is what the existing ones do). That has the > minor advantage that we know all objects in the repository, so rather > than picking out the interesting object with perl, we could generate the > full expected output. Thanks, your plan sounds better. I hadn't tried the merge when I sent that E-Mail, just saw your series & that it would conflict, wanted to give you/Junio a headsup.
