Re: [PATCH v3 00/44] SHA-256 part 2/3: protocol functionality

From: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date: Jun 20, 2020, 01:33 UTC
Message-ID: <20200620013350.GK6531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk102g3ua.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On 2020-06-19 at 21:09:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> 
> > Otherwise, this series is the same as v2 except for a rebase (for my
> > convenience and Junio's).
> 
> Not mine, though.  Keeping the same base is easier to see the
> incremental difference.

Okay, sorry about that. It does make it more convenient for me eventually (since I get to resolve conflicts more incrementally), but I don't usually have to worry about that until the series hits master, so I can hold off. I'm not rebasing as many patches anymore, so it's less of a problem for me.

Show 6 quoted lines

> It wasn't too cumbersome to rebase back on the same base as what was
> queued (and the making sure the result, when merged to 'master',
> matches the result of applying all these patches directly on top of
> 'master'), though ;-)
> 
> In any case, the updated step 34 made sense to me.  Thanks.

Yeah, I discovered it the other day when updating another project to deal with a SHA-256 Git, and I happen to be on vacation today, so I thought I'd send out a quick fix. I was surprised to learn that we had no tests for cloning empty repositories, but here we are.

-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204