On Wed, Nov 30 2022, Glen Choo wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Hm, it looks like ab/remove--super-prefix missed the preview release.. >>> Per the discussion ending at [1] I think my one-patch fix to "git >>> fetch" [2] should have made it into the release (it's pretty low-risk >>> and doesn't introduce too much churn to ab/remove--super-prefix). Is it >>> too late for that? >> >> Nobody seemed to have commented on [2]. Is this fixing recent >> regressions, or is it more like addressing an "if it hurts, do not >> do it then" problem? > > Ævar did comment on the patch in [2], but unfortunately it happened on > the thread ending at [1] (and others), so it's not easy to follow. > > It's solidly in the latter category. I don't think this has ever worked. > c.f. https://lore.kernel.org/git/kl6lsfiivcau.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> The fact alone that these questions need to be asked _now_ is a good >> indication that it is way too late for this cycle, I would have to >> say. > > At any rate, we shouldn't be rushing review, so this is fair (though > unfortunate). Let's continue counting on ab/remove--super-prefix and > ignoring my one patch, then. For my part I was waiting to see what Junio would do with "ab/submodule-no-abspath", which is already in "next". Depending on whether it's ejected or not I'd need to re-roll "ab/remove--super-prefix" on top of a new "master", as it extends the tests it added. You noted in [1] that you strongly preferred seeing "ab/submodule-no-abspath" ejected. I think you're right that the output is a bit weird, but: A. I think it's mainly odd/unintuitive for the recursive cases, I think outside of our own test suite absorbing repositories recursively almost never happens. B. I think it's an improvement in the output compared to the absolute paths we have now, especially for the common case of non-recursive. C. Changing it made it easier to test it, which is how it ended up as a supposedly quick prerequisite for "ab/remove--super-prefix": It's otherwise changing a test blindspot. D. As you note in [1] the data we'd need to pass around to make it sensible (maybe it should always be consistent with "git mv -v"?) would require passing more state around, some of which is tricky. I'd prefer to just have it graduate as-is, and build "ab/remove--super-prefix" on top. We can always further tweak the output later. But if you & Junio feel otherwise I think the best way forward would be to eject both topics, and I'd submit a re-rolled "ab/remove--super-prefix". Either would work as a way forward. Just let me know what you both prefer. 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/kl6l7czmec10.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
