Re: sb/submodule-parallel-fetch,

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 11, 2015, 23:07 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqvb84d1p1.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kYOtoWHCzpeHGrCEjTUuKYB3rogfV2dxL_TL5Pcu59RSg@mail.gmail.com>

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:
>>
>> Generally, I'm already quite satisfied with the state of the
>> infrastructure at the tip of the branch.
>
> I was about the rework the patch series.

OK.

I think the very early part of the series, up to 8fc3f2ee (sigchain: add command to pop all common signals, 2015-09-30), may be fine as-is (i.e. just rebase on top of updated 'master').

The step after that, i.e. asynch processor, is the most interesting and important one. Since it was written, I think the improvements that we want to be rolled into it from the beginning are:

 - do not rely on waitpid(-1);

 - no need for set_nonglocking(), squashing a4433fd4a and
   6f963a895a9 in;

 - correct the early-shutdown bug 79f38577 and again in 63ce47e1;

 - child_process_clear() in 1c53754a, which probably will become
   unnecessary if the series is rebuilt on top of updated 'master';

 - follow-up fixes and enhancements to the tests in c3a5d11 and
   74cc04d;

 - debugging support in 7eb93e91069 (from the other series that
   builds on top).

That would slim down not just the total number of patches, but also the amount of the code that needs to be looked at (as we would not add code only to later remove or fixup).