Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2010, #01; Tue, 9)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2010, 17:21 UTC
Message-ID: <7vsjz7hj3s.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3iq06fa9i.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> ...
>> * jh/gitweb-caching (2010-11-01) 4 commits
>>  - gitweb: Minimal testing of gitweb caching
>>  - gitweb: File based caching layer (from git.kernel.org)
>>  - gitweb: add output buffering and associated functions
>>  - gitweb: Prepare for splitting gitweb
>>  (this branch uses jn/gitweb-test.)
>
>> * jn/gitweb-test (2010-09-26) 4 commits
>>   (merged to 'next' on 2010-11-05 at 90b3adf)
>>  + gitweb/Makefile: Include gitweb/config.mak
>>  + gitweb/Makefile: Add 'test' and 'test-installed' targets
>>  + t/gitweb-lib.sh: Add support for GITWEB_TEST_INSTALLED
>>  + gitweb: Move call to evaluate_git_version after evaluate_gitweb_config
>>  (this branch is used by jh/gitweb-caching.)
>
> These two branches have simple to resolve but non-trivial conflict.
> Should I rebase 'jh/gitweb-caching' on top of 'jn/gitweb-test' then,
> resolving this conflict?

In general, when a conflict between topic A and B is simple to resolve (and I have the correct resolution already in 'pu'), I'd rather prefer to keep topic A independent of topic B than rebasing topic A on top of topic B, unless topic A is far from ready and topic B is truly ready and about to graduate, so that we can leave a door open for A to graduate before B does (or vice versa).

In this case, I think it is overdue (iow, sorry I've been slow) for the gitweb-test topic to graduate, so the separation does not really matter.

> BTW. this would allow me to improve 'gitweb: Minimal testing of gitweb
> caching'.

Then I probably should leave gitweb-caching out of 'next' when gitweb-test graduates to master so that you can refresh the caching series. Thanks for a heads-up.