From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB85C433E0 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 21:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5451423A9D for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 21:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727003AbhAHVf5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:35:57 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:63921 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726113AbhAHVf5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:35:57 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0169DB3431; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:35:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=LJryM+AcoOJfCjUgGsGupBjD+/I=; b=lHns4V QzIwL21nK3OQ14akGQjjuKRDizUrjoNJfhBCmKQkGmwqmRXO/2rjc4buXiwIHQgi RzQ6d4/P8mvKxz7qbHXwBvyLCFq5bj702I5TcffJhHXB20BjjqynZ9l5nJbyKQLu 19f8OQN2ylLdM428v9Pcdyl7Im5hZ1+HvWS5k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=R/houhe1zLLsbocjcCbZIEzBTvc5bpjk hFb/MLtsgz9f792Zukqnu/yebal/aE5VO6PPrYoVo8kVbCxiSpQGs5FjBuzMdURW pT4mkSeg/CAmPpY2Uob1rGOOEOZP+vfw+SjHVvoY7JDrMikDSLHoBV+QQZZj1Uay J1zyxRi7K4s= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED631B3430; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:35:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 727E8B342F; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:35:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Git Mailing List , Matheus Tavares Bernardino Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2021, #01; Wed, 6) References: Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 13:35:13 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 07 Jan 2021 12:23:39 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 64CDCFA2-51F9-11EB-9233-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: >>> * en/diffcore-rename (2021-01-04) 9 commits >>> - diffcore-rename: remove unnecessary duplicate entry checks >>> - diffcore-rename: accelerate rename_dst setup >>> - diffcore-rename: simplify and accelerate register_rename_src() >>> - t4058: explore duplicate tree entry handling in a bit more detail >>> - t4058: add more tests and documentation for duplicate tree entry handling >>> - diffcore-rename: reduce jumpiness in progress counters >>> - diffcore-rename: simplify limit check >>> - diffcore-rename: avoid usage of global in too_many_rename_candidates() >>> - diffcore-rename: rename num_create to num_destinations >>> >>> File-level rename detection updates. >> >> I'm curious again about your workflow and the meanings of your >> messages. Here, I'm surprised by the change in date; in [2] you >> listed it as 2020-12-14. Do you update the dates when you pull in new >> versions of the patch series? > > These record the committer dates, which is much closer to the date > the version of the patches were exposed to public testing for the > first time, and probably is more appropriate than the author date to > use to judge how long each topic has been "cooked". > >> Anyway, I'm not aware of any outstanding requests for this series; I >> think it's ready to start merging down. Are there issues you are >> aware of that you want to see fixed? > > Again, just getting overlooked and nobody bothered to ping the > topic; also I haven't had chance to give these patches serious > enough reading they deserve yet. FWIW, I marked the topic to be merged to 'next' after giving this series a scan and liking it. I admit that I didn't give too much tought to the last two steps, though. Thanks.