Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-04-16 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 04/07/2017 01:53 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Michael Haggerty >> wrote: >>> Duy, have you looked over my patch series? Since you've been working in >>> the area, your

Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-04-07 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Michael Haggerty > wrote: >> Duy, have you looked over my patch series? Since you've been working in >> the area, your feedback would be very welcome, if you have the

Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-04-05 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote: > Duy, have you looked over my patch series? Since you've been working in > the area, your feedback would be very welcome, if you have the time for it. You probably have guessed my answer based on my lack of response

Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-04-02 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramsay Jones writes: >> In that sense, Michael's series and Duy's later two series are >> "tangled" (i.e. shares some common commits that are still not in >> 'master'). If nd/files-backend-git-dir that is shared among them is >> ever rebased, all of them need to be

Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-04-02 Thread Ramsay Jones
On 02/04/17 04:38, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ramsay Jones writes: > >>> I am getting the impression that the files-backend thing as well as >>> this topic are ready for 'next'. Please stop me if I missed something >>> in these topics (especially the other one) that

Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-04-01 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramsay Jones writes: >> I am getting the impression that the files-backend thing as well as >> this topic are ready for 'next'. Please stop me if I missed something >> in these topics (especially the other one) that needs updating >> before that happens. > > Hmm,

Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-04-01 Thread Ramsay Jones
On 31/03/17 17:01, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Haggerty writes: > >> This version literally only contains a few commit message changes and >> one minor comment changes relative to v1. The code is identical. I >> wasn't sure whether it is even worth sending this patch

Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-04-01 Thread Jeff King
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:10:58PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > * I added a long blurb about the removal of an internal consistency > check in the commit message for > > [18/20] commit_packed_refs(): use reference iteration Thanks, the explanation there makes sense. I think this

Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-03-31 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 03/31/2017 06:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Haggerty writes: > >> This version literally only contains a few commit message changes and >> one minor comment changes relative to v1. The code is identical. I >> wasn't sure whether it is even worth sending this

Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-03-31 Thread Junio C Hamano
Michael Haggerty writes: > This version literally only contains a few commit message changes and > one minor comment changes relative to v1. The code is identical. I > wasn't sure whether it is even worth sending this patch series to the > ML again; Junio, if you'd prefer I

[PATCH v2 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

2017-03-31 Thread Michael Haggerty
This is v2 of this patch series. Thanks to Peff, Junio, Stefan and Ævar for their comments about v1 [1]. This version literally only contains a few commit message changes and one minor comment changes relative to v1. The code is identical. I wasn't sure whether it is even worth sending this patch