gmane.comp.version-control.git

What's cooking in git/spearce.git (Oct 2008, #01; Mon, 06)

What's cooking in git/spearce.git (Oct 2008, #01; Mon, 06)
--------------------------------------------------

Here are the topics that have been cooking.  Commits prefixed
with '-' are only in 'pu' while commits prefixed with '+' are
in 'next'.

The topics list the commits in reverse chronological order.  The topics
meant to be merged to the maintenance series have "maint-" in their names.

Topics aren't sorted by name; I have tried to cluster them together
to tell the story of how 'next' and 'pu' have evolved this past week.

----------------------------------------------------------------
[New Topics]

* sp/describe-docs (Tue Sep 30 11:55:16 2008 -0700) 1 commit
 . docs: Improve the description of describe --tags

I'm probably going to drop this topic if I can ever get around to
formally writing and posting sp/describe-lwtag for review.

* sp/describe-lwtag (Tue Sep 30 12:03:41 2008 -0700) 1 commit
 - [WIP] Change meaning of --tags and --all

Modifies "git describe --tags" to allow matching against lightweight
tags even when an annotated tag is found in the history.  Its not
in next because I haven't formally written a commit message and
posted the patch for discussion on the list.

(Continue reading)

headers

Stephen Haberman | 6 Oct 22:48

Re: What's cooking in git/spearce.git (Oct 2008, #01; Mon, 06)


> * sh/maint-rebase3 (Sun Oct 5 23:26:52 2008 -0500) 1 commit
>  - rebase--interactive: fix parent rewriting for dropped commits
> 
> A replacement for sh/maint-intrebase.  Its in pu because I have
> gotten 3 different versions of this patch, two of them posted a
> full 4 days after I merged the first version into next.  I felt
> burned by the patch author for not keeping up with my tree, so I'm
> not merging the patch to next.
>
> At this point its going to sit in pu until Junio comes back.
> I think the topic needs a few more days to settle to see if the
> patch author is going to submit any more revisions.

All fair enough.

Sorry for not keeping up with your tree--this was the first I heard my
first patch had made it into next, so I kept submitting new ones not
really knowing why they weren't generating feedback. My fault for not
actively looking into the pu/next thing--I'll know what to do next time.

Thanks,
Stephen

headers

Jeff King | 6 Oct 23:03

Re: What's cooking in git/spearce.git (Oct 2008, #01; Mon, 06)

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:59:43AM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

> * jk/diff-convfilter (Sun Oct 5 17:43:45 2008 -0400) 4 commits
>  - diff: add filter for converting binary to text
>  - diff: introduce diff.<driver>.binary
>  - diff: unify external diff and funcname parsing code
>  - t4012: use test_cmp instead of cmp
> 
> A general cleanup on how diff drivers are implemented.  Its still
> missing documentation updates and tests but doesn't break anything
> current as far as I can tell.  It needs more review before it can
> be slated for 'next'.

I should note, too, that this is in direct competition with Matthieu
Moy's "Implementation of a textconv filter for easy custom diff" posted
about a week ago. So if you are reviewing this series, please review
both and decide which you think is more sensible.

-Peff

headers

Shawn O. Pearce | 7 Oct 16:50

Re: What's cooking in git/spearce.git (Oct 2008, #01; Mon, 06)

Jeff King <peff <at> peff.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:59:43AM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> 
> > * jk/diff-convfilter (Sun Oct 5 17:43:45 2008 -0400) 4 commits
> >  - diff: add filter for converting binary to text
> >  - diff: introduce diff.<driver>.binary
> >  - diff: unify external diff and funcname parsing code
> >  - t4012: use test_cmp instead of cmp
> > 
> > A general cleanup on how diff drivers are implemented.  Its still
> > missing documentation updates and tests but doesn't break anything
> > current as far as I can tell.  It needs more review before it can
> > be slated for 'next'.
> 
> I should note, too, that this is in direct competition with Matthieu
> Moy's "Implementation of a textconv filter for easy custom diff" posted
> about a week ago. So if you are reviewing this series, please review
> both and decide which you think is more sensible.

To be clear, Jeff's series is in pu because it seems reasonable on
the surface and applied cleanly to my master branch.  Matthieu's
branch didn't apply cleanly, and I didn't really have the time to
figure out why and hand fix it.

So my carrying of Jeff's series and not Matthieu's is not an
endorsement one way or the other.  It was simply a matter of trying
to help the topic get exposure with the least amount of effort on
my part.

--

--

(Continue reading)