From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59EFF20248 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 06:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388082AbfDRGyT (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 02:54:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]:35874 "EHLO mail-pl1-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725987AbfDRGyT (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 02:54:19 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id ck15so707213plb.3 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 23:54:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=c0TNE96LUALB+aUtT9qpRAc2D66DARECgaGFayiWpy4=; b=No3ooF7IgtPtqs5M3Dkbj2q2TM/NodODEVt6RK+ltwYU3YEwD+Fsm+yYZj8rgroIYm IYHXXAjDVTO2mCCviaCEsmEuEgeQaQFuT4adbDVmld8rHiTcAQFmEDuxRiVDvHbOCcZW dBT0w3FprWM1MH0wq2gpv2vBJ0EJEpUsXpPkad2Bj6OPDoKtTlLqGwP/jNZu/np/Q8o6 0Pl51/7zNxruDAT+kM6X6N8kt3HbFOlFHdrmzS1mu0q7a1M3mCfZCc8MY3l3ZdIUhLVz aVo/lXqU5tYMmml2qtF7dFHjuWrL3uGrttX3OmD7Pda9Oo+JeemUkYpsPPy4h/mOCskq /Z5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=c0TNE96LUALB+aUtT9qpRAc2D66DARECgaGFayiWpy4=; b=FTIIIfIqdzcyO5Q0MyQ09UEB1p9JcJ7LnyHK3O6UbNNqAaUmvbJ+Z9cBgOrVdStSuo TECXW4w1j2l6EChTd5c958N1bPi6c7ON7gClvNVykDAgT9nanbmymkAqWRY3hbL1Zp2/ msb3/+kYWK5HesB1suyPY7A0ndtWozkUGLUaa3wcpiDeEh24xtH1kMCpgx9IBghQg9zz c9O3f9gDLKcOMavxmF9u87VOmrDfK2nMSwJrMRwI6qVDiVWxDeUWwyt8F5oAwp7dwJbN cmQSIX6NvfwQcTK8FkgjfxBeVt3Ld3GPzrAvrQmIxa5p64OtxdeOQVegjSnAUWZp0GO+ dHMg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXp6KsYELZ9QhAnSnBztIC1AX5C6/Q7SjnE/Y+USEH/pYRJm+0f 8BMYay5Q0aqgTwdt8EzMCgEdsw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzOPPKQMfShctt17GCuJ+m8Mpf/2m8BCq815qizRxkwubzFiKuULxvNnOzPWlViGu18N/8kxA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:781:: with SMTP id 1mr92197956plj.300.1555570457740; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 23:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2601:602:9200:32b0:f465:c3b3:d727:caa5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e193sm1283926pgc.53.2019.04.17.23.54.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 23:54:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Taylor Blau X-Google-Original-From: Taylor Blau Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 23:54:15 -0700 To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2019, #03; Tue, 16) Message-ID: <20190418065415.GA87809@D-10-19-246-32.dhcp4.washington.edu> References: <20190417023706.GA86159@Taylors-MBP.hsd1.wa.comcast.net> <20190417054250.GA98165@Taylors-MBP.hsd1.wa.comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 03:14:28PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau writes: > > >> That's this one > >> > >> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 19:13:06 -0700 (1 week, 3 hours, 23 minutes ago) > >> Subject: [PATCH v2 0/7] harden unexpected object types checks > >> > >> which I think is what has been queued and what is listed in the > >> message you are responding to. > > > > Ah, perhaps you could clarify some confusion I have about the "What's > > Cooking" emails (or at least point me somewhere I could un-confuse > > myself). > > > > This topic is in the "Cooking" section with a "-" (which I recall means > > that it's in 'pu'), but there is no "Will merge to ..." line below it > > from you. > > > > That makes sense to me, but I'm not sure whether or not that means it's > > queued. Do you say that a topic is queued once it's on your pu, or once > > you have written "Will merge to..."? > > > > Thanks in advance for your clarification. > > Hmph, I guess I shouldn't use the verb "queue" if it implies a lot > more than there is to it. I create a topic branch out of a patch > series on the list at some point in the iteration of a series and > merge it to 'pu'; I can say "I queued the topic to 'pu'" after doing > so. The verb to me does not mean anything more than that. I thought that there was much more to it than it seems there actually is. Thank you for clarifying what is meant here. > The fact that a topic is queued on 'pu' does not mean much. It can > be taken as a sign "Gitster thought that it may become 'next' worthy > material, either as-is or with further polishing and replacing." This matches my understanding that 'pu' is a precursor for 'next' and so on. > Once a topic gets discussed on list and it seems apparent that there > is a concensus that supports it, I may mark the topic as "Will merge > to 'next'" in the What's cooking report, but I may not realize that > the list already reached such a concensus and may leave it unmarked > in the report. > > So "this has been battle tested in such and such environment" and/or > "this round was reviwed by the thread here and they were supportive" > etc. is a very appreciated response to the "what's cooking" report > to help me merge the topic down to 'next'. That's quite helpful to know in the future. For this topic in particular, we've been running a nearly-identical version of it at GitHub for a couple of weeks now. It went out smoothly, and hasn't caused any trouble since. (In fact, quite the opposite: it fixed the bug that caused me to look into this in the first place. That is, the repository that SIGSEV'd after a `git rev-list --all --objects` no longer does). So, for clarity I think that this can be considered "battle-tested" and ready to merge onto next. > "I have sent a reroll at ..." I typically hear when I miss a > rerolled version and what is listed is still from an old iteration, > hence my "Eh, you are pointing at what I have queued" reaction. Understood, and thank you again :-). > Thanks. Thanks, Taylor