[PATCH v3] update: enable copy tracing for backwards and non-linear updates

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 10/17/2016 10:41 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>
>
> On 10/17/2016 08:55 PM, Kevin Bullock wrote:
>>> On Oct 17, 2016, at 13:45, Gábor STEFANIK <Gabor.STEFANIK at nng.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Kevin Bullock [mailto:kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org]
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 8:37 PM
>>>> To: Gábor STEFANIK <Gabor.STEFANIK at nng.com>
>>>> Cc: mercurial-devel at mercurial-scm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] update: enable copy tracing for backwards
>>>> and non-
>>>> linear updates
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 17, 2016, at 13:27, Gábor Stefanik <gabor.stefanik at nng.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> # HG changeset patch
>>>>> # User Gábor Stefanik <gabor.stefanik at nng.com> # Date 1472155346 -7200
>>>>> #      Thu Aug 25 22:02:26 2016 +0200
>>>>> # Node ID a41abe53dbc2c28d3b656f2a138da26949cf91d3
>>>>> # Parent  3fc51a50bec71bb34c11beaaa6686d521ac706b1
>>>>> update: enable copy tracing for backwards and non-linear updates
>>>>
>>>> Urk. It's generally confusing to send just one updated patch to the
>>>> end of an
>>>> in-flight series (but it's good you at least flagged it v3).
>>>>
>>>> Since 1-7 of the v2 series are queued already, can you resend current
>>>> versions of 8-12 as a v4?
>>>
>>> Done.
>>>
>>> It was Pierre-Yves's request to separate the last patch from the
>>> series, since it's not related to graft.
>>> But if there's disagreement on this, I'm more than happy to have it
>>> treated as part of the series.
>
> Actually, my initial request was to not include this one in the original
> batch (and I missed the fact he did) and then to send that one when the
> first series would be in.
>
> However, This patch seems to work just fine with only the initial first
> 5 that are pushed. So resending it independently was a good idea.
>
> So despite the general confusion on various sides, the end result of
> Gábor sending this on its own ended up being pretty good. I've pushed
> this patch.
>
>> Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. In that case I would've said to
>> resend just 8-11, but it's fine that you resent them as one chunk.
>
> For the record, I would have preferred that part of the series to not be
> sent again as a V4. The V2 was still in review and no change had been
> requested to it. Having it resent is increasing list traffic, patch
> tracking work and confusion on my side for no visible benefit.
> Kevin, any reason why you requested that ?

Ha, I just connected the dots. A V4 was sent to contains the update to 
the last patch. I got confused because that patch was in my mind 
independent and not included in that series at all. Sorry for the 
confusion and associated grumpyness.

Cheers,

-- 
Pierre-Yves David