On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:05 PM, David Turner <dtur...@twopensource.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 08:37 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: >> On 03/29/2016 10:12 PM, David Turner wrote: >> > On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 07:22 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: >> > > On 03/24/2016 07:47 AM, David Turner wrote: >> > > > [...] >> > > > I incorporated your changes into the lmdb backend. To make >> > > > merging >> > > > later more convenient, I rebased on top of pu -- I think this >> > > > mainly >> > > > depends on jk/check-repository-format, but I also included some >> > > > fixes >> > > > for a couple of tests that had been changed by other patches. >> > > >> > > I think rebasing changes on top of pu is counterproductive. I >> > > believe >> > > that Junio had extra work rebasing your earlier series onto a >> > > merge >> > > of >> > > the minimum number of topics that it really depended on. There is >> > > no >> > > way >> > > that he could merge the branch in this form because it would >> > > imply >> > > merging all of pu. >> > > >> > > See the zeroth section of SubmittingPatches [1] for the >> > > guidelines. >> > >> > I'm a bit confused because >> > [PATCH 18/21] get_default_remote(): remove unneeded flag variable >> > >> > doesn't do anything on master -- it depends on some patch in pu. >> > And >> > we definitely want to pick up jk/check-repository-format (which >> > doesn't >> > include whatever 18/21 depends on). >> > >> > So what do you think our base should be? >> >> I think the preference is to base a patch series on the merge of >> master >> plus the minimum number of topics in pu (ideally, none) that are >> "essential" prerequisites of the changes in the patch series. For >> example, the version of this patch series that Junio has in his tree >> was >> based on master + sb/submodule-parallel-update. >> >> Even if there are minor >> conflicts with another in-flight topic, it is easier for Junio to >> resolve the conflicts when merging the topics together than to rebase >> the patch series over and over as the other patch series evolves. The >> goal of this practice is of course to allow patch series to evolve >> independently of each other as much as possible. >> >> Of course if you have insights into nontrivial conflicts between your >> patch series and others, it would be helpful to discuss these in your >> cover letter. > > If I am reading this correctly, it looks like your series also has a > few more sb submodule patches, e.g. sb/submodule-init, which is > responsible for the code that 18/21 depends on. > > I think jk/check-repository-format is also good to get in first, > because it changes the startup sequence a bit and it's a bit tricky to > figure out what needs to change in dt/refs-backend-lmdb as a result of > it. > > But I can't just merge jk/check-repository-format on top of 71defe0047 > -- some function signatures have changed in the run-command stuff and > it seems kind of annoying to fix up. > > So I propose instead that we just drop 18/21 for now, and use just > jk/check-repository-format as the base.
By 18/21 you mean [PATCH 18/21] get_default_remote(): remove unneeded flag variable in builtin/submodule--helper.c? You could drop that and I'll pick it up in one of the submodule series', if that is more convenient for you. > > Does this seem reasonable to you? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
