From: Eric Sunshine Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 21:37:15 GMT Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2013, #05; Thu, 26) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Sunshine writes: > >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Eric Sunshine writes: >>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Junio C Hamano 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. Sounds good. Thanks.