Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 26 2021, Derrick Stolee wrote: > >> On 10/25/2021 11:48 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>> * vd/sparse-reset (2021-10-11) 8 commits >>> - unpack-trees: improve performance of next_cache_entry >>> - reset: make --mixed sparse-aware >>> - reset: make sparse-aware (except --mixed) >>> - reset: integrate with sparse index >>> - reset: expand test coverage for sparse checkouts >>> - sparse-index: update command for expand/collapse test >>> - reset: preserve skip-worktree bit in mixed reset >>> - reset: rename is_missing to !is_in_reset_tree >>> (this branch is used by ld/sparse-diff-blame.) >>> >>> Various operating modes of "git reset" have been made to work >>> better with the sparse index. >>> >>> Needs review. >> >> This topic had good review in its first three versions, and the >> current v4 has had one response that doesn't seem to have actionable >> changes. Could you re-evaluate if the "needs review" label is still >> appropriate? > > [CC-ing Emily, the author of that one response] > > Per [1] I think it should be "expecting a re-roll", unless I'm wrong > about Victoria's "I can add that in my next version[...]" there, or > missed some subsequent exchange not in that thread. > I am planning to re-roll with that test update, but I wanted to give it some time to see if other reviews came in. I'll send a new version tomorrow at the latest. > Or maybe it should be marked for "next", I haven't reviewed the latest > version myself, just trying to help by filling in the gap about what the > label should be, if not "needs review"... > > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/16fbc2dc-6fdd-ed0d-ebc6-3b0566142879@xxxxxxxxxx >
