Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2023, #01; Wed, 2)

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
	John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com>, git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2023, #01; Wed, 2)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 09:56:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABPp-BE5h6C1iuGDz4HdJzb2bDLidEnQ0_U4fv93JrYXA2_cbw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqv8dqhlkz.fsf@gitster.g>

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 9:19 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
[...]
> >> However in a recent article
> >> (https://github.blog/2023-07-27-scaling-merge-ort-across-github/)
> >> GitHub says that they are already using git-replay (though not sure
> >> it's this exact version or another one), and GitLab plans to use it
> >> too.
>
> So there are plenty folks who are capable of reviewing but they are
> not interested in giving it to the general public by withholding
> their reviews ;-)?

I can see how one could jump to that conclusion, but I don't think
it's warranted.  I have a little information that might shed some
light:

-----

At the beginning of July, well before the above link came out,
Johannes sent me an email pointing me at
https://github.blog/changelog/2023-06-28-rebase-commits-now-created-using-the-merge-ort-strategy/.
In the email, he also noted my earlier stated concerns on the list
(about releasing `replay` early possibly painting us into a corner
preventing some desired goals for the tool from being realized), and
tried to ensure we could still work towards having a `replay` command
like the one I envisioned while also asking for my thoughts on pushing
for the current portion of work to be published and included in git.
My sense was he was pushing for the work to be released, but just
being careful about my concerns first.

Unfortunately, I was on vacation that week, and sadly have otherwise
been buried in coming up to speed on a new team and haven't had time
to even respond to git-related stuff.  I didn't respond to him until
late last week.

I pointed out that the 'EXPERIMENTAL' banner addresses most of my
concerns so it should be fine to move forward, but I suspect my delay
has resulted in him now being buried in other matters, and in the
mean-time the article Christian highlighted was produced by others.

-----

Anyway, hope that helps.  I did review V2 and have been meaning to
comment on V3 (and respond to Toon's comments), though not sure my
"review" counts as such since I'm the original author of most of the
patches...

(And sorry for being missing in action.  I've flagged a few other
emails that I'm hoping I can follow up on, but my time is currently
quite limited...)