Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > IOW, we no longer need to check the validity of the preferred pack in > either case. But in an incremental MIDX bitmaps world, we do need to > keep calling prepare_midx_bitmap_git() along the MIDX's ->base pointer, > if non-NULL. Thanks. >> I wonder what we can do better to make sure the work a contributor has >> already done (in this case, resolve interaction between two topics) is >> not wasted and recreated (possibly incorrectly) by the maintainer. > > I am not sure. During the interim maintainer period, Patrick sent a > couple of rounds of ps/build with a final patch to the effect of > "unbreak everything in seen", which could be dropped. > > But I think an easier thing to do would have been for myself to indicate > that you'd run into a non-trivial conflict here and provide the > resolution proactively. A trick used by recent series from Patrick say things like "this is based on X, with Y and Z merged". This patch could have done the same way. It of course makes two topics entangled and one takes the other hostage, so we need to carefully judge if such a dependency is worth it. So far, I found Patrick's judgement on the choice of dependencies quite solid (essentially, Y and Z must be cooked enough at least for 'next', and can reasonably be expected to graduate while we iterate on the new topic that is being built). Thanks.
