From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B251EC433FE for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2022 21:49:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229609AbiKDVt4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2022 17:49:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50210 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230127AbiKDVty (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2022 17:49:54 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 904994E418 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2022 14:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id b2so4822036iof.12 for ; Fri, 04 Nov 2022 14:49:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5No0GSQcv5fBta9yqQX5mdn/CYyDL32pM+4No3kMazs=; b=EsSPNtpoHEfAxfAwZUNuX3KvrLz6rdhKIuOtwmXRYnUrxUp5mOaePuPOzBbHktaQEC XZGv2Triu8ySGdYFEizExX9j5P5z3G/9yBn5NaD+qorqs7tXfmYVN390EuICGA+Y8175 djf693Lkv+18aLljiB9FFmnojKHW44FgpCmbrWONGaAkbJqgnyFZ/14Mo9oSLViM+NIy mr3TpyYuXgysKaS5Q2Dc5kSo4KZdDG+NCxu+SKvg+lr5zNPDqqNooBDXkgvH3MLs1NmM I/A0AN4F9+RB4Wu4GdDY6rK0qTHL+3TcMAbnbRri42NM+pLtDGi698Uqa9cLbMmo+0ux TIwg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=5No0GSQcv5fBta9yqQX5mdn/CYyDL32pM+4No3kMazs=; b=OQHsX07y69fKd6pYUGwRgkOwndcOXuPO3425L7GGS7sfhMgbx6IOrTk0nedIkMJ0bi 2YKhF1LM2Tm1zNrwV5oBZLtL3m37tUkDmqv4AD0GyNTDZQfDM1o0925RWwnUcppA8spz PxDxqJqtlZ6TJiNMMhD3NUiLF3/BEDzJnG+EbiGPKWE6o5TjNHZ/p2MAvHkDE5G0aeAG mTeilkKUsyx4lD0A0RzlDyMtbuvSSb2yz0Gjy2y8OTyXfPXYepKqbQ7P7qE1fS9C6fkK 6gw0tvy5MptzycvK83j0sytfDP5gBkhplGr7VVgBzMCD0IriUsaPdUy+SQ0a4lBJ6wZt z2nw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1LDE3NQSBF1Q5cmzBTMlxdv6F6hGXWstx/M75+Qe9RMTtUDy+G KiQTRISkekyZ18B89kHtVIG2bg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6wS978iZ7+YntWv2LATud/veQOE1K/1HvNzWkTR4EgHmoRRtOgNPckOYgncTE/ctk9R/sYDA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:2d49:b0:6bc:d242:579d with SMTP id d9-20020a0566022d4900b006bcd242579dmr23705308iow.7.1667598589733; Fri, 04 Nov 2022 14:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g4-20020a05663810e400b00372e2c4232asm43436jae.121.2022.11.04.14.49.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 04 Nov 2022 14:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 17:49:48 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Taylor Blau Cc: Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rebase: stop setting GIT_REFLOG_ACTION Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org [dropping broken email from the To: list] On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 05:49:03PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:19:00PM +0000, Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget wrote: > > This is a follow up to pw/rebase-reflog-fixes that moves away from using > > GIT_REFLOG_ACTION internally. This conflicts with patches 12 & 14 in [1]. As > > this series replaces the code being changed in those patches I think the > > best solution would be to just drop them. > > Thanks, I appreciate the updated round. > > The conflict you noted in [1] is a perfect example of why I dislike > queuing sweeping leak cleanups like in that series. Those two patches > need to get dropped in order to queue this series. OK, except what > happens if a different part of [1] marks a test as leak-free when that > is no longer the case because of something in this series? > > I haven't queued this topic yet, so perhaps all of this is moot with > respect to these particular two series. But in general, such a problem > is not hard to imagine. > > It is greatly appreciated to err on the side of smaller, more targeted > series instead of sweeping changes when they can be avoided. > > Thanks, > Taylor