Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] First steps towards partial clone submodules

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>,
	Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] First steps towards partial clone submodules
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 10:50:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABPp-BGL3L5uReVHtSUsNJ7fYgBV_Us5ZYv7e9FPHT2DuY-dyg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1623111879.git.jonathantanmy@google.com>

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 5:26 PM Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for your reviews. I believe I've addressed all review
> comments, including the one from Elijah about the test failing with
> sha256 (which turns out to be because I didn't add a call to
> setup_git_directory(), which the other test helpers do).

Thanks for fixing those up.  I spotted some minor nits/questions, but
nothing big.

Looks like Junio did spot some bigger items...which raises a question
for me.  I have a series
(https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.969.git.1622856485.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/)
that also touches partial clones.  Our series are semantically
independent, but we both add a repository parameter to
fetch_objects().  So we both make the same change, but you also make
additional nearby changes, resulting in two trivial conflicts.  So,
should I rebase my series on yours, should you rebase on mine, or
should we just let both proceed independently and double-check Junio
resolves the trivial conflicts in favor of your side?

Thoughts?