Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 29, 2020, 13:40 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006291538500.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpn9o8o7p.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Hi,

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:48:37PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> >> Changes since v1:
> >>
> >>  * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust
> >>    than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these
> >>    patches).
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why would we ever want to base any patches on `seen`?
>
> Never.  Even bulding on top of 'next' is discouraged.
>
> Either "prepare a merge on top of 'master' with all the topics in
> flight that you depend on, and base your series on top of it,
> risking that any one of these topics can take your series hostage"
> or "wait until these topics graduate and then base your topic on
> 'master'".  I'd vastly prefer the latter, as it would become
> cumbersome if one of the topics you base your series on gets
> rerolled.

I recall having had to base a patch on `seen` (née `pu`) because it would otherwise have needed "two base branches". In another instance, I made a patch to fix incorrectly-resolved merge conflicts.

There _are_ occasions when you want to base your patch on `seen`, admittedly not very common occasions.

Ciao, Dscho