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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 6, 2018, 17:50 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq601smexy.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1807031438240.75@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> The latest iteration of this is here:
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180702105717.26386-5-alban.gruin@gmail.com/T/#r8eea71077745d6f2c839acb6200bb8b2bea579d3

Good.  I think we have it in tree now.

> I would *strongly* encourage you to allow Alban to go back to the small,
> incremental patch series he sent before, because it will make it
> *substantially* easier to not only review, but also develop, and for you
> to merge.

An organization in which you can make sure that the order of dependency and which ones have been updated since previous rounds are clear, even to those who are looking from the sidelines ("these 4 patches are to replace patch 3, 7 and 8 from the previous round" is already hostile to late reviewers and doing so without a pointer to the archive is even worse---a full reroll with the unchanged ones marked below the three-dash lines would be perfect), would be good. A random collection of seemingly separate but actually interdependent topics is very hard to work with with limited mental bandwidth.

Once the core of _a_ topic hits 'next', we can go incremental (because by definition things get quiet and require small updates by then), but not before.

I think the 7 patches in ag/rebase-i-in-c are more or less in good shape, modulo the issues pointed out on the list yet to be addressed, which I do not think require redesign. Which is good.