Re: [PATCH v6 00/39] Lockfile correctness and refactoring

On 09/26/2014 06:31 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

* Rebase to current master.

When you say this, could you be a bit more descriptive?  Has the
series updated to use something new that appeared on 'master' since
the last series was posted and needed to be rebased?  Or did you
just made sure that the series applied on top of the current master
still works, even though you have been running "rebase -i" on the
same fork point since the previous round?

If the former, naming what it now uses i.e. "rebased to current
master, to redo PATCH x,y,z using the new X recently graduated"
would be helpful.

If the latter, well, not rebasing is preferrable if the changes are
still viable on the previous fork point, to be absolutely honest.

I have always routinely rebased my series to the current master each
time I reroll them. I thought that was helpful. Thanks for the info that
you prefer that I not do it. In the future I will only rebase to master
if I see that there would be nontrivial conflicts or if I would like to
take advantage of something that has graduated.

I've always tried to mention when the rebases were nontrivial. In this
case it was unproblematic.


As an aside, I've always found it wishy-washy to talk about "current
master" and "fork points" and stuff when (AFAIK) format-patch-generated
emails don't mention the fork point. So unless my cover letter specifies
the fork point as an unambiguous commit name, there is no basis *anyway*
to expect that you will apply the patch series in the same context that
I developed it.

Another victim of the format-patch information shredder :-(

Cheers,
Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu