Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Since the `packfile.c` cleanup is still in flight, this series is based >> on top of master: b31fb630c0 (Merge https://github.com/j6t/git-gui, >> 2024-11-11) with those patches merged in. This applies cleanly on top >> of next, but conflicts with `bf/set-head-symref` in seen, the conflict >> is mostly straight forward. I'll merge the topic in if it is merged into >> next soon. > > I think set_head() part is fairly trivial. But there seems to be a > much bigger conflicts with the incremental midx topic. > I see that you've merged the topic to seen and the merge resolution looks ok to me, I'll also merge in `tb/incremental-midx-part-2` for my next version. > I actually do not understand offhand why doing anything to the midx > layer needs to change the calling convention of set_head() or many > other things that are unrelated to what midx layer does, and that do > *not* use the new parameter *anyway*. Shouldn't the "subsubcommand > can inherit the repository from the builtin subcommand > implementation" be split out as a separate topic, which the midx > thing later builds on? > That was just the progression of how I worked on these patches. My goal was to remove global variables, the subsubcommand can inherit just was a dependency which I bundled along, since it was a single patch. There is no reason it cannot be split, Let me go ahead and do that.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
