On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 04:20:41PM +0100, Toon Claes wrote: > > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > It may not be worth a reroll, but I found the explanation you gave in > > the cover letter more illuminating than what is written above for > > explaining why this change is desirable. In particular, the discussion > > of the reftable backend was very helpful. > > Well, I wasn't sure the explanation would be relevant in the present, > because the reftable backend might happen relatively far into the > future. I think it's not _that_ far in the future anymore. All prerequisite topics are in flight already, so I expect that I can send the reftable backend's implementation upstream around the end of January or start of February. It will surely require several iterations, but we might be able to land it in v2.44 (very optimistic) or v2.45 (more reasonable). With that in mind I think it is okay to already mention the new backend in commit messages -- at least I have been doing that, as well. Also, the tree already knows about the reftable backend because we have both the library and technical documentation in it for quite some time already. The patch itself looks good to me, thanks! Whether we want to reroll just to amend the commit message I'll leave to you and others to decide. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
