From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] alternative unify appending of sob Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:56:45 -0800 Message-ID: <7vvccprlya.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1353894359-6733-1-git-send-email-drafnel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Brandon Casey , git@vger.kernel.org, Brandon Casey To: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 29 06:57:05 2012 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 1Tdx7R-0006QE-4y for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:57:05 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751244Ab2K2F4t (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:56:49 -0500 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:38330 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751039Ab2K2F4s (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:56:48 -0500 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF27DACB1; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:56:47 -0500 (EST) 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=TbvvbdFbVfiRtHTcWuT5cjQJDe8=; b=Im2G+Y aPPIS7tmKTAR/gVUDO6fQMVeHapbRCLy+PReV2KjT2TLiVIBrnSi8k7iyhVcEXy/ OLOqisYBQOzl+PCicsfwdED4xqgrweFFDyyClzuevbmWkomWhE/1J5hGXu2Mtn8v fiUgMZ7XETS3lEiCWG3yVy57LVeQk1yCv+1TA= 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=XEbyEcPySi8W8QNrjiPD0qNqaRp4mliU OEyGVpzbnHtENWEmcymyYUi7YtymLQ8S+8joLw6ZilI6uInxJBAEuPPY6+ElczpK t9MQ9AnIwgjipmMyZ9OObaqoIM+KDgRoNWc91w87c1DPLtk4/MYJCcpAT7XgAfQl uUUNZtba580= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA01ACB0; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:56:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [98.234.214.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48929ACAF; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:56:47 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy's message of "Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:56:49 +0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8F8C98A8-39E9-11E2-81C6-C2612E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy writes: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Brandon Casey wrote: > >> I've integrated Duy's series with a few minor tweaks. I added a couple >> of additional tests to t4014 and corrected one of the tests which had >> incorrect behavior. I think his sign-off's should still be valid, so I >> kept them in. Sorry that I've been slow, and now the two of us are stepping >> on each other's toes, but Duy please take a look and let me know if there's >> anything you dislike. > > I'm still not sure whether format-patch should follow cherry-pick's > rule in appending sob. If it does, it probably makes more sense to fix > the sequencer.c code then delete log-tree.c (not fixes on log-tree.c > then delete it). I see that your changes pass all the new tests I > added in format-patch so sequencer.c is probably good enough, > log-tree.c changes are probably not needed. Feel free take over the > series :-) After reading the series over, I agree with the above. Patch #9 that fixes the copy in log-tree.c only to discard it in patch #11 does not seem to be the best organization of the series. Instead, perhaps we can salvage the tests in patch #9 (but mark failing ones as expecting failure) without updating the one in log-tree.c, adjust prototype in patch #10 (still broken in log-tree.c) to avoid having to make changes to the callers in patch #11, and then conclude the series with #11? Other than the code in patches #06 and #07 that I already commented on, i.e. assignments in if () condition that make it harder to follow the logic, I did not find anything majorly objectionable in the series. Thanks for a pleasant read.