On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Ferreira (theiostream)
<bnm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> * df/dir-iter-remove-subtree (2017-05-29) 5 commits
>> . remove_subtree(): reimplement using iterators
>> . dir_iterator: rewrite state machine model
>> . dir_iterator: refactor dir_iterator_advance
>> . remove_subtree(): test removing nested directories
>> . dir_iterator: add tests for dir_iterator API
>>
>> Update the dir-iterator API and use it to reimplement
>> remove_subtree().
>>
>> GSoC microproject.
>> Ejected as it conflicts with other topics in flight in a
>> non-trivial way.
>
> I see this conflicts with Duy's
> fa7e9c0c24637d6b041a2919a33956b68bfd0869 ("files-backend: make reflog
> iterator go through per-worktree reflog", 2017-04-19) because his
> commit creates a new dir_iterator whose NULL value means something
> semantically. This would be perfectly OK with the old dir_iterator API
> (where NULL was not a possible return value from dir_iterator_begin()
> and could be "reserved" for this case), but will most probably
> generate issues with the new API, where NULL can *also* mean we failed
> to lstat() the directory we're trying to iterate over[1].
>
> I'll try to address this issue playing with pu, but I'm just wondering
> what would be the best way to send this upcoming not-based-on-master
> patch to the list. Should I just send it normally and signal it
> originates from pu rather than master?
pu is bad as that contains all series in flight.
If possible take the smallest set of series that this would depend on
(usually it is one in my experience and it seems as if you have identified
that series already) and just base it on top of that.
Thanks,
Stefan
>
> Thanks,
>
> [1]:
> https://public-inbox.org/git/1493226219-33423-1-git-send-email-bnm...@gmail.com/T/#m68286d783b5dfbad6921fbf012f685a629645c61
