Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > I'm really happy about your work. > > Regarding strategy: I think a good approach would be to get as much of > the preparatory work as possible (the abstraction and separation of > refs-be-files) to the point where it can be merged before there is too > much more code churn in the area. That work is not very controversial, I > think, and letting it wait for a long time will increase the likelihood > of conflicts with other people's changes. The refs-be-lmdb patches, on > the other hand, (1) will take longer to get polished, (2) will take > longer to review because other people are not familiar with LDMB, and > (3) won't bitrot very fast anyway because they don't overlap as much > with areas that other people are likely to work on. So I would advocate > working on those at a more deliberate pace and planning for them to be > merged as a separate batch.
I agree with you on all counts. My wish is for you to play an interim maintainer starting around week #7 (Nov 9th) of this cycle and merge the early "preparatory" part to 'next' before I come back around the end of November ;-) to be shipped as part of the release at the end of this cycle. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
