On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 05:16:35PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> 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). I typically try and do the same, but I didn't want to base this topic on top of tb/incremental-midx-part-2, since that topic isn't mature enough and I didn't want to hold this one hostage as a result. I forgot that the other topic was still being held in 'seen'; I should have remembered and mentioned the conflict in the patch earlier. Sorry again for the trouble :-<. Thanks, Taylor
