Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2013, #05; Thu, 26)

> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>> [New Topics]
>>>>
>>>> Would $gmane/239575 [1] be of interest for "New Topics"?
>>>>
>>>> [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/239575/
>>>
>>> Actually I was planning to scoop it up directly to master but forgot
>>> to do so.
>>
>> Make sense.
>>
>>> Running "git diff maint pu -- name-hash.c" shows that we have added
>>> a comment that mentions index_name_exists---that needs to be
>>> adjusted, too, by the way.
>>
>> Oops, yes, I had noticed that too when testing atop 'pu' but then
>> forgot about it when preparing the patch for submission on 'master'.
>>
>> I'm not sure how to move forward with this now that kb/fast-hashmap,
>> with which it has a textual conflict, has graduated to 'next'. Should
>> this become a two-patch series with one for scooping directly to
>> 'master' and one for 'next' to sit atop kb/fast-hashmap? (But how will
>> the textual conflict be handled?)
>
> I have a feeling that a small unused helper function is not a huge
> breakage that needs to be immediately fixed, so a single patch as a
> clean-up on top of whatever is cooking on 'next' should be the best
> approach, I would think.