From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:21:11 GMT Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2010, #01; Tue, 9) Message-ID: <7vsjz7hj3s.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Jakub Narebski writes: > Junio C Hamano 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.