Show 33 quoted lines
> Le 15 avr. 2026 à 13:58, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> a écrit :
>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>>> Depending on the history graph, subtree split can recurse deeply
>>>> enough to encounter this limit. Rewrite the rejoin-deepening
>>>> algorithm to reduce recursive calls.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - Rebase on master
>>>
>>> We have seen two iterations of this series without anybody
>>> commenting on it. Is it a sign that the topic, or possibly "git
>>> subtree" itself, is of interest to nobody? Or is it that it is so
>>> well done that nobody had any comment on it?
>>>
>>> I don't use "git subtree" myself, and I do not know of anybody who
>>> will scream at me if I break it by merging an unreviewed patch, so I
>>> can merge it without worrying too much about fallout personally, but
>>> that is a tad irresponsible as the maintainer ;-)
>>>
>>> So...? Any volunteers among those who have a higher stake in the
>>> program than I do (which admittedly is not a high bar to cross)?
>>
>> FWIW, I can see that [1/3] is a benign clean-up that should not
>> change any semantics. [2/3] talks about the variable $sub, which is
>> used elsewhere, is not protected ...
>> ... in "git subtree" to verify), but otherwise the change looks benign
>> to me. I have no idea if what [3/3] does is sensible or not (and
>> again, I'd rather want to see somebody with stakes to double check).
>
> So, yet not any volunteers?