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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE 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 0F59D1F463 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 19:25:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729284AbfLDTZo (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:25:44 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:55072 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728110AbfLDTZo (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:25:44 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B6A3358C; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:25:43 -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=decpZ2n6+w7bm6baBHeGa/NZpts=; b=ezE6qe i2VR9/GKI4TaTlZXwALi0fCJcV8boKpfwlDjLbl/Fmhf+KEGgiJH4eMt5brk+N7w 3IZBGhqPMNl2ldIi7LNXSFY9pmYgDhThOpjvHzfSQSqx3fVeommMThY0g6yNoUAg u4QZjXv/9+rr3+Rx42e72u7nplMakL65YRCs8= 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=TlhFmmth740L0Zd1K64MJbfpNd3ow86A NIimPxB2gmsG7o91FQroMk5u3pZNtkqTNK5TJ9C7+xXsUDgVK0y3tUwC+bEnarRN KC0psvoOi/GhSubsvTmzb3++m2Y8DUFzsOQ6cmImVwHlaECImDT8GrBcMjXflyOm jpgAj11+xH0= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA63A3358B; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:25:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (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 3008233587; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:25:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Alexandr Miloslavskiy Cc: Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] Add --pathspec-from-file option References: Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 11:25:42 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Alexandr Miloslavskiy's message of "Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:06:27 +0100") 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: DD1E2EB2-16CB-11EA-8EB3-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Alexandr Miloslavskiy writes: > On 03.12.2019 17:55, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >>> Changes from V3: >> >> Yikes, perhaps our mails crossed or something? I think the previous >> round is already in 'next'. >> >> Let's wait and see they cook enough to graduate to 'master', and >> build a separate series on top to teach other commands the option >> using the facility introduced by the current series (which is the >> first 6 patches you sent here). > > My intent is to support more commands, so I was working on other > patches in the background. Today more patches were ready and I wasn't > sure whether to submit another topic or continue the old one. After > some thinking, I decided to continue the old one. Well I've split the new patches into its own topic to queue on the am/pathspec-f-f-checkout branch, that builds directly on top of the am/pathspec-from-file branch, for now. I suspect that they may want to be two topics (i.e. for "add" and for "checkout/restore"), but I'd like to keep them out of 'next' either way for a while until the base topic proves to be solid enough. > Please give me an advice: when the time comes, shall I prepare even > more patches and submit a massive branch, or shall I submit today's > remaining patches, then wait again? I imagine that massive branches > are scary and will deter reviewers? Scary will probably not be an issue for the follow-up topics around the pathspec-from-file theme, but a huge topic tends to wear out the author and the reviewers, inviting trivial bugs that would otherwise be found easily go unnoticed. Thanks.