Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > karthik nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> [snip] >> >>> * kn/reftable-writer-log-write-verify (2024-12-07) 1 commit >>> - reftable/writer: ensure valid range for log's update_index >>> >>> source: <20241206-424-reftable-writer-add-check-for-limits-v2-1-82ca350b10be@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> Hey Junio, this was reviewed by Patrick and Toon. I see this was added >> to 'seen'. Is it also scheduled for 'next'? > > If it does not say "Will do X", it is not scheduled for that. > > This applies to everybody, not specifically to you, but when you see > an empty entry like the above in the "What's cooking" report, three > things you can do are: > Thanks for listing it out. > (1) offer a few lines of topic summary For this topic specifically, perhaps Reftable backend adds check for upper limit of log's update_index. > (2) point at the review message(s) Although you've already noticed, let me do that so I remember for next time. Patrick's review on v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Z1K-rXakmMQHN9If@xxxxxx Toon's review on v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/871pyejrfi.fsf@xxxxxxxxx > (3) suggest for updated status with rationale (e.g. "let's move > this to 'next' by day X, as this and that reviews at URL1 and > URL2 seem to indicate that we have a concensus that it is ready". > > Patrick's comments were on the previous one, IIRC, but I do see Toon > commented on the latest round. > > Thanks. Thanks for all the work you do. In short, I was curious what the expectation was since it is an empty entry. Your response helps!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
