Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> ns/tmp-objdir had a re-roll that has not been picked up, at [1] --
> perhaps because it's an combination of ns/tmp-objdir and
> ns/batched-fsync (it'd be nicer to have those two split). I gave the
> ns/tmp-objdir part another read over and was only able to spot two
> small things. I think you should mark it as expecting a reroll based
> on [2] ("Good catch. I'll fix this.") and [3] ("I'll take this
> suggestion."), but I think it could be merged to next quickly after
> that.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1076.v9.git.git.1637020263.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CANQDOddCC7+gGUy1VBxxwvN7ieP+N8mQhbxK2xx6ySqZc6U7-g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CANQDOdd7EHUqD_JBdO9ArpvOQYUnU9GSL6EVR7W7XXgNASZyhQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
>> Also ns/remerge-diff that is Neeraj's rebase of the
>> remerge-diff topic needs Elijah's Ack at least.
>
> Mark it as expecting a re-roll; I've been waiting for ns/tmp-objdir to
> settle so I can rebase on it.
I took a quick look at the rerolled one on list, and I agree that
keeping tmp-objdir and batched-fsync as two separate topics makes
sense, since the former can graduate much more smoothly and quickly,
and it can have other dependant topics.
So I'll mark all three (ns/tmp-objdir, ns/batched-fsync and
remerge-diff) as "Expecting a reroll".
As I announced, I won't be taking any new topics or new rerolls
today (or possibly tomorrow) until I can sift the topics I've
already seen to come up with a tested set of candidate topics to
merge to 'next', so there is no need to rush.
Thanks.
