From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Turner Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] replacement for dt/refs-backend-lmdb v7 patch 04/33 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:05:15 -0400 Organization: Twitter Message-ID: <1459368315.2976.27.camel@twopensource.com> References: <1458802034.28595.8.camel@twopensource.com> <56F76E2C.5030700@alum.mit.edu> <1459282370.2976.7.camel@twopensource.com> <56FB743C.3020902@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, pclouds@gmail.com, Ramsay Jones To: Michael Haggerty , Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 31 05:31:13 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1alTKA-00089x-6t for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 05:31:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751651AbcCaDbF (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 23:31:05 -0400 Received: from mail-qg0-f45.google.com ([209.85.192.45]:35929 "EHLO mail-qg0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750915AbcCaDbE (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 23:31:04 -0400 Received: by mail-qg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id w104so50171599qge.3 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:31:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=twopensource-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:organization :date:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qDnSw9e8XXzTxNpxETG1ONW4NV07lTLABEgYyhWG6Go=; b=VYjo+v9+TA38doT+Wa6CuGAE8/3ewN3toGuAotYeE44L9FaZlW/tldJnPgE3c/HVHy OemggtJan+yQqSL46P/sj7j+gmZ/gNYrLqcn94GNf8T22+2rOYbmXTQt/7OpqIR8BU+Z ofv8n69FhneTC/v666K2t/Bw70DDxQ3OxSGVHPMUG0Cb4o7eAWFTyQV9nMUIWjQqGy4I TbIbq3mEJ/Ra/QfEGEUN4T99j5jTsxKcJ4YztxYD93/PXx1l9tKM8PoG32Zn8l4WA6Z2 2/XwoKesSPnsVAwXYjW1ntUlGQWMWBJEFMCNBF8d81R2cJS4bsuzu7wiR65YUJ9U95MG Dw3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to :references:organization:date:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qDnSw9e8XXzTxNpxETG1ONW4NV07lTLABEgYyhWG6Go=; b=bPGq379hW6giX0BvA9z9iOOXBNrpcyXAGhf3CBUDlMgywFvRywGKWBoGPkuf1Buucl lT2Wsb3KVpATQsAsypEo7RlkA0LWMtEOcd9zICylSRYjnLA4IxjKEEMLsD+aMvk59cr9 OdulnpJAfgzxG3HC36Bxg0cOSJPOGPO7CuKQnbRc7g9t0SXe5thVaTe/ZF9LBaNi2axD O9qNxDfjHxC3IqfJBC5Cj7bBe3sBjF87WZ2xuyeZqSCUjYgdqWbIkguiUR8uHztfXRVp MbshTwT8vE9EcWaL3qn6zyleMVJl5YmlbyY05mfl0/WPXEHFMBUESUyvZfDfJoY1aqsr MGZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKhcSHmg6UBVd5BdXlpUZM4+DHnMBFv5lzgemX7qIh8txHFzkGtr9MEA54LzmYAYg== X-Received: by 10.140.20.183 with SMTP id 52mr13896366qgj.38.1459395063224; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ubuntu (207-38-164-98.c3-0.43d-ubr2.qens-43d.ny.cable.rcn.com. [207.38.164.98]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d71sm3166944qhd.18.2016.03.30.20.31.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:31:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56FB743C.3020902@alum.mit.edu> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5-1ubuntu3.1 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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. Does this seem reasonable to you?