Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2022, #04; Fri, 18)

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:36:36PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 08:24:21AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > * ab/various-leak-fixes (2022-11-08) 18 commits
> >> >   (merged to 'next' on 2022-11-18 at 8828bb7161)
> >> >  ...
> >> >  (this branch is used by ab/merge-index-prep.)
> >>
> >> > * pw/rebase-no-reflog-action (2022-11-09) 2 commits
> >> >   (merged to 'next' on 2022-11-14 at 790dadc8d3)
> >> >  ...
> >> >  (this branch is used by ab/merge-index-prep.)
> >>
> >> The other topic referred to is not described anywhere, and not part
> >> of 'seen'.  Intended?
> >
> > It was merged intentionally via 790dadc8d3 (Merge branch
> > 'pw/rebase-no-reflog-action' into next, 2022-11-14) as you note, though
> > I'm not sure why the description from 790dadc8d3 didn't make it into the
> > WC report.
> >
> > In any case, the description I went with is:
> >
> >     Avoid setting GIT_REFLOG_ACTION to improve readability of the
> >     sequencer internals.
>
> Sorry, but the question was about ab/merge-index-prep that does not
> exist in the report and not in 'seen'.
>
> For now, I'll ignore that phantom user of these two topics.  It can
> come back when dust settles ;-).

Ah, yes, I remember this topic. It's from [1], and it does indeed use
ab/various-leak-fixes and pw/rebase-no-reflog-action (cf. [2]), which
apparently isn't quite sufficient (cf. [3]).

If I recall correctly, it had some conflicts when queuing, so I punted
on it (because at the time when [2] was written the correct base(s) were
not known).

Thanks,
Taylor

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-v9-00.12-00000000000-20221118T110058Z-avarab@gmail.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/Y3gVekgT7jLibjWo@nand.local/
[3]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/221119.86o7t3ds49.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/