Re: [PATCH 00/11] Allow reference values to be checked in a transaction

Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] writes:

On 02/09/2015 08:05 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

[...]
This patch series applies on top of master merged together with
sb/atomic-push, which in turn depends on mh/reflog-expire.

I am a bit puzzled by your intentions, so help me out.

I see that your understanding is that Stefan will be rerolling the
push atomicity thing; wouldn't we then want to have a "fix and
clean" topic like this one first and build the push atomicity thing
on top instead?

My understanding is to not reroll origin/sb/atomic-push, but
origin/sb/atomic-push-fix (which is worded misleading. It is not about
atomic pushes, but about enabling large transactions in my understanding)

Yes, that is what I thought.
...
Both series have to do with reflogs, but they are logically pretty
independent. In particular, "Fix some problems with reflog expiration"
fixes problems that existed before mh/reflog-expire. And considering
that one topic is quite mature whereas the the other is just making its
debut, it seemed like yoking them together would slow down the first
topic for no good reason.
...
I expected that mh/reflog-expire and sb/atomic-push would be merged
pretty early in the 2.4 cycle (they are both in next already). Junio, is
that not your plan?

OK, I am glad I asked for clarifications.  It was that I felt uneasy
to see many new "this cleans and fixes" while there are in-flight
topics in the same area.

Thanks.