Subject: Re: ns/tmp-objdir and ns/remerge-diff

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:21:13 -0800

Elijah Newren <[email-masked]> writes:

> ns/tmp-objdir had a re-roll that has not been picked up, at [1] --
> perhaps because it's an combination of ns/tmp-objdir and
> ns/batched-fsync (it'd be nicer to have those two split).  I gave the
> ns/tmp-objdir part another read over and was only able to spot two
> small things.  I think you should mark it as expecting a reroll based
> on [2] ("Good catch. I'll fix this.") and [3] ("I'll take this
> suggestion."), but I think it could be merged to next quickly after
> that.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email-masked]/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email-masked]/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email-masked]/
>
>>  Also ns/remerge-diff that is Neeraj's rebase of the
>> remerge-diff topic needs Elijah's Ack at least.
>
> Mark it as expecting a re-roll; I've been waiting for ns/tmp-objdir to
> settle so I can rebase on it.

I took a quick look at the rerolled one on list, and I agree that
keeping tmp-objdir and batched-fsync as two separate topics makes
sense, since the former can graduate much more smoothly and quickly,
and it can have other dependant topics.

So I'll mark all three (ns/tmp-objdir, ns/batched-fsync and
remerge-diff) as "Expecting a reroll".

As I announced, I won't be taking any new topics or new rerolls
today (or possibly tomorrow) until I can sift the topics I've
already seen to come up with a tested set of candidate topics to
merge to 'next', so there is no need to rush.

Thanks.