Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] First steps towards partial clone submodules

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 8, 2021, 17:50 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BGL3L5uReVHtSUsNJ7fYgBV_Us5ZYv7e9FPHT2DuY-dyg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cover.1623111879.git.jonathantanmy@google.com>

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 5:26 PM Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>
> Thanks everyone for your reviews. I believe I've addressed all review
> comments, including the one from Elijah about the test failing with
> sha256 (which turns out to be because I didn't add a call to
> setup_git_directory(), which the other test helpers do).

Thanks for fixing those up. I spotted some minor nits/questions, but nothing big.

Looks like Junio did spot some bigger items...which raises a question for me. I have a series (https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.969.git.1622856485.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/) that also touches partial clones. Our series are semantically independent, but we both add a repository parameter to fetch_objects(). So we both make the same change, but you also make additional nearby changes, resulting in two trivial conflicts. So, should I rebase my series on yours, should you rebase on mine, or should we just let both proceed independently and double-check Junio resolves the trivial conflicts in favor of your side?

Thoughts?