Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> Just to let you know, as these two are fixups to the topic that are >>> no longer in 'next' as we rewound the tip of 'next' after release, >>> if you want, you can redo the base topic instead of piling small >>> fixes on top. >>> >> >> Well the first patch in this series, is a bug fix for master since we >> already have batched updates exposed via git-update-ref(1). So only the >> second patch can be squashed in. >> >> That said, while it is easier for me to not re-roll, I'd happy to do so, >> what do you think? > > I'll let you decide; please choose whichever way you consider would > give us the better result. The second one seems to be a band-aid > that trades one bug with another bug, so it may be prudent to leave > it separate. It would make it easier for a future change that fixes > the lower-layer transaction processing to refer to it, with "earlier > we took thw two step approach, which had these downsides. now we fix > the issue for real". > > Thanks. I was thinking the same. I do think leaving it separate has the benefit of extra context being present which in the future would be useful like you mentioned. The only downside being that the base patches are anyway out of 'next', so we could squash the patch in. But, In the end I do think that keeping them separate is better also because only one patch will be squashed in. So let's keep them separate. - Karthik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
