On Wed, 01 Nov 2017 10:21:20 +0900 Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff Hostetler <[email protected]> writes: > > >> Yes, that, together with the expectation that I will hear from both you > >> and JTan > >> once the result of combined effort becomes ready to replace this > >> placeholder, > >> matches my assumption. > >> > >> Is that happening now? > > > > Yes, I'm merging our them now and hope to have a version to > > send to Jonathan and/or the list sometime this week. > > Thanks. Junio, would you prefer that the combined effort be in one single patch series or separated out into 3? The way I see it, there are two independent patch series - this one (object filter support in rev-list and pack-objects) and my one (repo extension for partial clone, fsck, and gc), and one patch series that depends on these two. I prefer to have smaller patch series as a patch author (for example, less need to update later patches due to a design or API issue caught in review), as a reviewer (for example, less things to keep in mind as I review things patch by patch), and as an experimenter (assuming that smaller patch series go through the "next" -> "master" process faster, this means fewer locally-applied patches to juggle when testing out a new feature, as Jonathan Nieder said [1]). I understand if you prefer each patch set to have at least one useful self-contained feature (or bug fix), though. (Having said that, I think that this patch set, at least - object filter support in rev-list and pack-objects - is useful enough on its own, but I understand if it doesn't reach the bar.) [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/
