Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2017, #08; Mon, 29)

From: Daniel Ferreira (theiostream) <bnmvco@gmail.com>
Date: May 31, 2017, 03:18 UTC
Message-ID: <CAEA2_RJWnjiqinoAhd9aEM=zx9K4MxYpsoDcgoVwf0RnChsnUQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1sr889lb.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> * df/dir-iter-remove-subtree (2017-05-29) 5 commits
>  . remove_subtree(): reimplement using iterators
>  . dir_iterator: rewrite state machine model
>  . dir_iterator: refactor dir_iterator_advance
>  . remove_subtree(): test removing nested directories
>  . dir_iterator: add tests for dir_iterator API
>
>  Update the dir-iterator API and use it to reimplement
>  remove_subtree().
>
>  GSoC microproject.
>  Ejected as it conflicts with other topics in flight in a
>  non-trivial way.

I see this conflicts with Duy's fa7e9c0c24637d6b041a2919a33956b68bfd0869 ("files-backend: make reflog iterator go through per-worktree reflog", 2017-04-19) because his commit creates a new dir_iterator whose NULL value means something semantically. This would be perfectly OK with the old dir_iterator API (where NULL was not a possible return value from dir_iterator_begin() and could be "reserved" for this case), but will most probably generate issues with the new API, where NULL can *also* mean we failed to lstat() the directory we're trying to iterate over[1].

I'll try to address this issue playing with pu, but I'm just wondering what would be the best way to send this upcoming not-based-on-master patch to the list. Should I just send it normally and signal it originates from pu rather than master?

Thanks,

[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/1493226219-33423-1-git-send-email-bnmvco@gmail.com/T/#m68286d783b5dfbad6921fbf012f685a629645c61