From: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:12:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] replacement for dt/refs-backend-lmdb v7 patch 04/33
Message-ID: <1459282370.2976.7.camel@twopensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <56F76E2C.5030700@alum.mit.edu>

On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 07:22 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 03/24/2016 07:47 AM, David Turner wrote:
> > [...]
> > I incorporated your changes into the lmdb backend.  To make merging
> > later more convenient, I rebased on top of pu -- I think this
> > mainly
> > depends on jk/check-repository-format, but I also included some
> > fixes
> > for a couple of tests that had been changed by other patches.
> 
> I think rebasing changes on top of pu is counterproductive. I believe
> that Junio had extra work rebasing your earlier series onto a merge
> of
> the minimum number of topics that it really depended on. There is no
> way
> that he could merge the branch in this form because it would imply
> merging all of pu.
> 
> See the zeroth section of SubmittingPatches [1] for the guidelines.

I'm a bit confused because 
[PATCH 18/21] get_default_remote(): remove unneeded flag variable

doesn't do anything on master -- it depends on some patch in pu.  And
we definitely want to pick up jk/check-repository-format (which doesn't
include whatever 18/21 depends on).

So what do you think our base should be?