Re: ag/rebase-i-rewrite-todo, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2018, #07; Thu, 28)

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jul 6, 2018, 22:38 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1807070035210.75@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwou8jgp5.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

Hi Junio,

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > Of course, at that point I will have to look through those 7 patches
> > again, if only to verify that yes, they are still the same.
> 
> That is something the patch author must help the reviewer with, no?
> 
> Have uncontroversial stuff early in the series, concentrate on
> stabilizing them before moving on to shiny new toys, then mark them
> "unchanged since the last round" after three dashes when sending a
> reroll to update later parts of the series that are in flux.  After
> a few rounds, it may become apparent to reviewers that these early
> parts can stand on their own merit as a separate series, on top of
> which the remaining patches can build as a separate (sub)topic, at
> which time we may have two or more topics, among which the early one
> that has become stable may already be 'next'.

Okay, I give up. I tried to show you that I thought that Alban's partitioning made sense on its own, that they could (and should) stabilize independently, even if they technically build on one another. In fact, it was I who suggested to keep them in bite-sized patch series. And you simply disagree from your maintaining point of view, and I violently disagree with your decision from the reviewer's point of view.

In the end, you win. Dscho