Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2010, #08; Sun, 24)
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 26, 2010, 00:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <201001260159.09286.jnareb@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4B5E357A.50607@kernel.org>
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 at 16:21:51 -0800 (PST), J.H. wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> > > > I am waiting for response from (I guess busy) J.H.; I can do the re-roll > > if he is too busy to work on it. > > I'm juggling about 4 things in the air right now, with gitweb being one > of them, and two of them involving external entities to kernel.org. > It's good news all told, just requires a fair amount of my time > (currently) and babysitting. I've been digging through the patches > you've got right now. I should really just pull them in from your git > tree again.
Note however that my series (gitweb/cache-kernel branch) is based on gitweb-ml-v2, not on newer gitweb-ml-v5.
Show 7 quoted lines
> After reading through some of the discussions today I've had some more > ideas on the caching stuff, they are written up on my whiteboard and I > might be able to get to shortly, but I've got a rather large wall > looming ahead of me that's going to chew up a *LOT* (read at least a > month, if not two) of my time, so I'm a bit under the gun to try and get > this as far as I can before I hit that wall or this is going to fall by > the wayside again till I've got time again.
I think the best way of utilizing your time would be for you to take active part in discussion, especially in what git.kernel.org needs and why.
I can clean up the miscellaneous improvements parts myself, and re-roll caching patches.
Show 12 quoted lines
> > > For the main caching patch, it seems like good idea to take Jakub's > > > split-up series instead, let's see what is J.H.'s opinion on the series? > > > > > > > Let me at least make them into proper patches, with commit messages and > > configureability at least of the original caching patch by J.H. > > > > Also the question whether to create 'print -> print $out' patch, or to > > manipulate *STDOUT instead must be solved, I think, before applying > > those patches... well, at least beyond 'pu'. > > > > I am waiting for promised J.H. comments, when he will have time for it...
-- Jakub Narebski Poland