From: Matthew DeVore Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:14:56 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] support for filtering trees and blobs based on depth Message-ID: <04d6b46f-da87-bde2-1511-a9f2071bf034@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: On 2019/01/15 15:41, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> This is turning out to be messier than I like. >> >> The topic is tangled with too many things in flight and I think I >> reduced its dependencies down to nd/the-index and >> sb/more-repo-in-api plus then-current tip of master (and that is why >> it is based on a1411cecc7), but it seems that it wants a bit more >> than that; builtin/rebase.c at its tip does not even compile, so >> I'll need to wiggle the topic before it can go to 'next'. > Half false alarm. I do need to wiggle the topic, but that was not > because the choice of base was bad. It was that nd/the-index plus > sb/more-repo-in-api had semantic merge conflicts with the then-current > master. If I understand right, this is a product of the fact that you had to merge these branches together and base my change on top of them, and that is a result of that fact that I didn't work on top of master for the first iterations of the patch. Sorry about that. My last re-roll was based on master (commit 77556354) but I guess before I sent that version of the patch set I had already done some damage by working off of next for the earlier patches. I think my last version of the patch was fine since it was based off master. Let me know if I've misunderstood. >> And worse yet, it seems that filter-options-should-use-plain-int >> topic depends on this topic in turn as it wants to use >> LOFC_TREEE_DEPTH. > This part is still true. The scaling-factor-over-the-wire topic > does need to be rebuilt on top of this one. This seems like a easier problem to understand, but I'm not sure how to avoid this issue in the future. Thanks, Matt