Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] Add --pathspec-from-file option

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 4, 2019, 19:25 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqfthz51vt.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <e4165215-c0f0-8659-8abf-9e91be671e8b@syntevo.com>

Alexandr Miloslavskiy <alexandr.miloslavskiy@syntevo.com> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On 03.12.2019 17:55, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>> Changes from V3:
>>
>> Yikes, perhaps our mails crossed or something?  I think the previous
>> round is already in 'next'.
>>
>> Let's wait and see they cook enough to graduate to 'master', and
>> build a separate series on top to teach other commands the option
>> using the facility introduced by the current series (which is the
>> first 6 patches you sent here).
>
> My intent is to support more commands, so I was working on other
> patches in the background. Today more patches were ready and I wasn't
> sure whether to submit another topic or continue the old one. After
> some thinking, I decided to continue the old one.

Well I've split the new patches into its own topic to queue on the am/pathspec-f-f-checkout branch, that builds directly on top of the am/pathspec-from-file branch, for now. I suspect that they may want to be two topics (i.e. for "add" and for "checkout/restore"), but I'd like to keep them out of 'next' either way for a while until the base topic proves to be solid enough.

> Please give me an advice: when the time comes, shall I prepare even
> more patches and submit a massive branch, or shall I submit today's
> remaining patches, then wait again? I imagine that massive branches
> are scary and will deter reviewers?

Scary will probably not be an issue for the follow-up topics around the pathspec-from-file theme, but a huge topic tends to wear out the author and the reviewers, inviting trivial bugs that would otherwise be found easily go unnoticed.

Thanks.