Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] lockfile: introduce flag for locks outside .git

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:38:03 -0800

Jonathan Nieder <[email-masked]> writes:

>> The 14-patch series may have been internally consistent and its
>> individual patches, when each of them was taken alone by itself, may
>> have made sense, but it appears that the aggregated whole these
>> separate topics took their root from is inconsistent with itself
>> in minor ways like this here and there X-<.
>
> I don't follow.  It's normal for an API change to affect code that
> uses the API --- what inconsistency are you talking about here?

I was under the impression that the purpose of the series was to
propose an API update to be used together with the remainder of the
system, not just "update code in master, breaking unstated set of
topics and leaving them behind without updating them for now".

Such a series is perfectly fine as a feeler to see if people are
happy with the updated API that it does not completely cover the
topics in flight, but I wouldn't have had to waste time trying to
figure out what you are doing differently to cause other topics in
flight to break if such a feeler series were labeled clearly as
RFC/PATCH, and/or "these other topics need to be adjusted to this
new API when this series settles", or somesuch.