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-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CB11F5AE for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 00:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726024AbgGAADm (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:03:42 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:58343 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725930AbgGAADm (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:03:42 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF6FEC347; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:03:40 -0400 (EDT) (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=5cikigrZHzkix/2baqUkx17Ci5A=; b=STW8gO FWtuj980iSeqTf4D5nRYbne+tq53ibjOtaTFkWlqniCggBlBhPT6VsR2c/IXbSbQ nisdze0Sfa/bt6pxnRcVaX4BOuyRD1GH1xxQTtsw6/GBNoimo1Q4n2zf+WBSkj9N vdjaf7xFvkelj/xfgbyZ9lsDeIEJ+YQJ9qiSg= 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=SXUoHtcx8XL07kwyG9VUkPdQLp57jp9h tBE8uebyivLKxa5KPfoZCD0qvYQ5+61Jor7p9PYgaXLhrNY+GE9+9VewyvO2FEuM i8Vz8OxuoTkXURmK+uIp84TfLb7X/tduVx00fyg3GLDtA1iDt37BX1hi9QktPGQx Qx6rXA4Wi7w= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D77EC346; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:03:40 -0400 (EDT) (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-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB261EC345; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:03:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Han-Wen Nienhuys Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget , git , Han-Wen Nienhuys Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 00/20] Reftable support git-core References: Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:03:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Han-Wen Nienhuys's message of "Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:28:21 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 504EE4A6-BB2E-11EA-84FF-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:54 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> "Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget" writes: >> >> > base-commit: b9a2d1a0207fb9ded3fa524f54db3bc322a12cc4 >> >> This is based on 'next', which usually is a sure way for a topic to >> stay forever out of 'next', but we have impactful dependence only on >> two topics, I think, and a good news is that both of them are in >> pretty good shape. I think Brian's part 2 of SHA-256 work should be >> on the 'master' branch soon, and Dscho's "customizable default >> branch" is also ready---it just would, like all other topics, want >> to spend at least one week on 'next' to be safe. And after that, >> this topic can be directly on 'master' (there is another trivial >> conflict around bisect--helper, but I am not worried about it), >> which looks quite good. > > ok. For the next time, I should keep basing myself on master, even if > I know there are conflicts? Right now we know there won't be and that is why I said the above. If your next round would change the code drastically, or somebody sends changes that deliberately conflicts with what you are doing to sabotage you, the situation would become different. > Do you have an opinion on > https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.665.git.1592580071.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/ > ? > > There is some overlap with in sequencer.c, and Phillip's approach is > likely more principled, so I'd like to base reftable on that. I assumed that these were offered to you as possible improvements to be folded into your series, so I didn't read them very carefully and I didn't queue them myself. I expected that I would see them, possibly modified to fit the context better, as part of your series sent from you, perhaps to become a part of early clean-up portion of your topic. Thanks.