Re: [PATCH 04/13] remote: make get_remote_ref_states() always populate states.tracked

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Does this series _semantically_ depend on topics other than your other
"set HEAD" topic that is still not in 'master'?

No, but I wanted Jeff's changes. I have checked that I can apply the
"set HEAD" series, then Jeff's changes, then this latest series all to
next w/o conflict.

I've not tried it w/o Jeff's changes in the middle.

I see you made it cleanly apply on top of 'pu', but frankly, I really hate
to see a series based on 'pu' as a matter of principle and discipline.

Other topics in 'pu' may not be ready for a long time, and you do not want
this series to be taken hostage to them.  Having to fork your topic off of
many other topics not even in 'next' means it would be more cumbersome for
me to handle your series when any of the other topics that you base your
work on need to be discarded or replaced.

Understood. I thought this situation was a little different though due
to Jeff's changes in the middle which really build on my set HEAD
topic.

In other words, you make your series unworkable with if you introduce too
many dependencies.

I've rebased it on top of Peff's jk/head-lookup topic (which in turn
depends on your js/remote-set-head topic), but I suspect that you would
want this series fork from and only depend on js/remote-set-head topic.
In any case, please check the result after I push the results out to make
sure that I did not make any silly mistakes while rebasing the series.

Will do, thanks.

I also suspect that you would want to reroll the entire series anyway; see
separate comments on 10/13 and 11/13.

I've replied to those. Would you mind applying 10/13 and 11/13
independently of this series? This topic depends on them since
otherwise there will be double-frees, but they can go anywhere before
the topic.

j.