From: Chinmoy Chakraborty Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 05:11:35 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cache-tree.c: remove implicit dependency on the_repository Message-ID: <16da2d91-9eda-ddf4-dd87-e07fb2bfbbcb@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: On 4/4/21 7:19 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nothing else needs to be said. The update-main-cache-tree is a thin > wrapper to work on cache tree for THE MAIN in-core index instance, > so it is natural if it needs to pass r and r->index, exactly because > the latter is THE MAIN in-core index instance for the repository. > That is too obvious that it is best left unsaid, for the same reason > why you shouldn't even mention what you did in updating the use of > update_cache_tree() inside unpack_trees(). There is nothing notable > in there. > > cf. Documentation/SubmittingPatches > [[describe-changes]] > [[summary-section]] > [[meaningful-message]] > [[imperative-mood]] Okay, I'll update the message. Thanks for the review. >> This commit also fixes the `sparse-index.c` file in which >> the `convert_to_sparse()` and `ensure_full_index()` >> method use `cache_tree_update()`. > What branch did you base this patch on? There is no update_cache_tree() > call in sparse-index.c on 'master' (well, there is no sparse-index.c > in 'master' to begin with). Actually the patch hit against a use of `cache_tree_update()` in the branch 'ds/sparse-index', so I was suggested by Derrick Stolee to rebase my work on to of his branch. You may view the discussion here: https://lore.kernel.org/git/f187df01-8e59-ac74-01e1-586a7a63fd4e@gmail.com/ > And if you are building somewhere other than the tip of 'master', it > is necessary to say where, in order to save confusion and wasted > effort for your readers. E.g. "This patch was made on top of > merging topic 'X' and 'Y' into 'master'". Then you'd only have to > wait for 'X' and 'Y' to graduate to 'master' before the topic can > proceed. > > Thanks. Should this information also be added to the commit message or just the cover letter of the patch?