On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 6:01 PM Caleb White <cdwhite3@xxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday, October 6th, 2024 at 00:11, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Also, since you're touching infer_backlink(), see [1] which makes some > > changes nearby. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20240923075416.54289-1-ericsunshine@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Thanks for the heads up, what is the best way to move forward on this? > Should I base my patch series on that topic branch or bring in that > particular patch? If that particular patch impacts your patch series in a way which would require Junio (or any reviewer who wants to test your series) to make non-trivial changes to resolve merge conflicts, then it would probably be best to base your series atop that one (rather than bringing that patch into your series). When composing the cover material for your series, be sure to mention that you have based your series atop that patch. > > And you might be interested in [2] which may indicate that there are > > some holes in the tests around worktrees which might need filling. > > (Since your patches are whitespace-damaged, I haven't checked whether > > your series succeeds or fails in the way the series to which [2] is a > > response fails.) > > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cQXFy=xPVpoSq6Wq0pxMRCjS=WbkgdO+3LySPX=q0nPCw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I just ran through the scenarios you described and everything works as > you would expect. This is because internally the code handles both > absolute and relative paths, and the worktree.path has been updated to > always be the absolute path. I will make this clear when I rewrite that > patch's commit message. Thanks.
