Re: [PATCH 00/10] fast export and import fixes and features

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>,
	"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>,
	Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>,
	Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] fast export and import fixes and features
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 00:44:47 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABPp-BGzqpxF_+ubp2cft9dQ-03pgcCxJEP13VOUv5WADHDjnA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181111072716.GK30850@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:27 PM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:23:02PM -0800, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
> > This is a series of ten patches representing two doc corrections, one
> > pedantic fix, three real bug fixes, one micro code refactor, and three
> > new features.  Each of these ten changes is relatively small in size.
> > These changes predominantly affect fast-export, but there's a couple
> > small changes for fast-import as well.
> >
> > I could potentially split these patches up, but I'd just end up
> > chaining them sequentially since otherwise there'd be lots of
> > conflicts; having 10 different single patch series with lots of
> > dependencies sounded like a bigger pain to me, but let me know if you
> > would prefer I split them up and how you suggest doing so.
>
> I think it's fine to put them in sequence when there's a textual
> dependency.  If it turns out that one of them needs more discussion and
> we don't want it to hold later patches hostage, we can always re-roll at
> that point.
>
> (I also think it's fine to lump together thematically similar patches
> even when they aren't strictly dependent, even textually. It's less work
> for the maintainer to consider 1 group of 10 than 10 groups of 1).
>
> > These patches were driven by the needs of git-repo-filter[1], but most
> > if not all of them should be independently useful.
>
> I left lots of comments. Some of the earlier ones may just be showing my
> confusion about fast-export works (some of which was cleared up by your
> later patches). But I like the overall direction for sure.

Thanks for taking the time to read over the series and providing lots
of feedback!  And, whoops, looks like it's gotten kinda late, so I'll
check any further feedback on Monday.