Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] convert: add "status=delayed" to filter process protocol

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 30, 2017, 01:03 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqshjndul2.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <832A4D04-F32F-4D1F-A5CE-3514F8469E63@gmail.com>

Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

>> That's right. There might be some code sharing opportunity with Ben's
>> code that is already in "next":
>> https://github.com/git/git/blob/next/convert.c#L660-L677
>> 
>> Would it be useful for you if I send v5 with the changes rebased 
>> onto "next"?
>
> Hi Junio,
>
> sorry for bugging you again, but Ben's topic did not make it to "master"
> today. Is it OK if I rebase my topic onto "next" and resend?

Sorry, your earlier question was lost in the noise and I should have picked it up during my last sweep of leftover bits.

If you are depending on a single topic in 'next', it is better to build on the tip of that topic, not on 'next', if you can figure out where the tip is. In practice, while we are exchanging patches via e-mail, there should be no noticeable difference either way [*1*], but once you start throwing a complex and long series, you may want to publish it to a public repository for reviewers and the maintainer to pull, and that workflow might give us an easier way to review, but a topic based on 'next' will never have a chance to be pulled to be merged for real, as merging its tip to 'master' means it will bring all other junk that may not ready. So if you anticipate that to happen someday, practicing to build on things that are only needed (e.g. if you depend on two topics, you may start by merging them on top of 'master' and then building your change on top) is a good idea.

No matter what you do, please mention on top of what you built your work.

Thanks.