Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> The patches 1, 5 fix small issues in the reference backends. The other >>>> patches 2, 3, 4 & 6, each add one of the new sub-commands. >>>> >>>> The series is based off master, with 'kn/ref-transaction-symref' merged >>>> in. There seem to be no conflicts with 'next' or 'seen'. >>> >>> Wait. There is something fishy going on. >>> ... >>> Is this actually a single patch submission of 9/9 alone? Patches >>> 1-8/9 are all old ones that are in 'master' already. >>> >>> Puzzled... >> >> I think this is just a mess up in the range diff, I haven't changed >> anything locally. So adding the correct range diff here: > > Quite honestly, I care much less about the range-diff that is almost > unintelligible than the actual patches. Your title line says 0/6, > your updated range-diff presumably have 1: to 6:? As a sanity check > mechanism, the list of commits and the overall diffstat is a more > useful part in the cover letter message so that I (or any other > recipients) can use to compare against the list of messages that > appeared on the list. > > We may want to teach "format-patch --range-diff" to place the output > of range-diff _below_ the list of commits and the overall diffstat > in the cover letter (and at the end of the patch for a single patch > topic). > I usually manually add in the range-diff, which is probably where the error came from. I didn't even know about "format-patch --range-diff". > I'll ignore the range-diff in the original cover letter and see if > the rest makes sense. > > Thanks. It does use the same base as the previous revision, I rebased in place using 'rebase -i' and amended for fixes from the first review. > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Wait. There is something fishy going on. >> >>> Range diff vs v1: >>> 1: 1bc4cc3fc4 = 1: 1bc4cc3fc4 refs: accept symref values in `ref_transac... >>>... >>> 8: 4865707bda = 8: 4865707bda refs: remove `create_symref` and associated dead code >>> 9: 4cb67dce7c ! 9: 2bbdeff798 refs: create and use `ref_update_ref_must_exist()` >> ... >> I am confused why we are seeing a total reroll of such an old topic. >> >> Also you have one more patch at the end. Neither the before or >> after version of 9/9. >> >> Is this actually a single patch submission of 9/9 alone? Patches >> 1-8/9 are all old ones that are in 'master' already. > > And then there is a mystery of this v2 being a 6-patch series. > Perhpas a wrong range-diff was pasted into it? If this were truly a > total reroll of the previous 8-patch series with an extra step > appended to the end, it would have been a 9-patch series, not 6. > > Even puzzled... The v1 of this series is also a 6-patch series, this is not a re-roll of the earlier series 'kn/ref-transaction-symref' (which is already in next). This is based on top of it. Sorry for the confusion though.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
