{"thread":{"id":"49322","subject":"Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2018, #02; Tue, 11)","startedAt":"2018-09-12T02:36:40Z","lastAt":"2018-09-12T11:39:37Z","messageCount":3,"participants":["Stephen & Linda Smith","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"357942","messageId":"8951536.UanLVthjk7@thunderbird","threadId":"49322","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2018, #02; Tue, 11)","fromName":"Stephen & Linda Smith","fromEmail":"ischis2@cox.net","sentAt":"2018-09-12T02:36:35Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-12T02:36:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ishchis2@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:20:19 PM MST Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \n> * jc/wt-status-state-cleanup (2018-09-07) 1 commit\n>  - WIP: roll wt_status_state into wt_status and populate in the collect\n> phase (this branch uses ss/wt-status-committable.)\n> \n> * ss/wt-status-committable (2018-09-07) 4 commits\n>  - wt-status.c: set the committable flag in the collect phase\n>  - t7501: add test of \"commit --dry-run --short\"\n>  - wt-status: rename commitable to committable\n>  - wt-status.c: move has_unmerged earlier in the file\n>  (this branch is used by jc/wt-status-state-cleanup.)\n> \n\nI note that the jc/wt-status-state-cleanup branch is a patch \"for illustration \npurposes only\" [1].\n\nI was about to update that patch to start dealing with the free() function \ncalls, but noted you added the patch.  Do you want me to take that patch and \ncontinue on?  Or does someone else have something in progress?\n\nsps\n\n[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180906005329.11277-1-ischis2@cox.net/T/\n#m3554b678d23fd8d7bc702d83667bebacdf02d8aa\n\n\n\n\n"},{"id":"357953","messageId":"xmqqo9d3mbn0.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","threadId":"49322","inReplyTo":"8951536.UanLVthjk7@thunderbird","subject":"Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2018, #02; Tue, 11)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2018-09-12T07:13:23Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-12T07:13:29Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Stephen & Linda Smith <ischis2@cox.net> writes:\n\n> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:20:19 PM MST Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> \n>> * jc/wt-status-state-cleanup (2018-09-07) 1 commit\n>>  - WIP: roll wt_status_state into wt_status and populate in the collect\n>> phase (this branch uses ss/wt-status-committable.)\n>> \n>> * ss/wt-status-committable (2018-09-07) 4 commits\n>>  - wt-status.c: set the committable flag in the collect phase\n>>  - t7501: add test of \"commit --dry-run --short\"\n>>  - wt-status: rename commitable to committable\n>>  - wt-status.c: move has_unmerged earlier in the file\n>>  (this branch is used by jc/wt-status-state-cleanup.)\n>> \n>\n> I note that the jc/wt-status-state-cleanup branch is a patch \"for illustration \n> purposes only\" [1].\n>\n> I was about to update that patch to start dealing with the free() function \n> calls, but noted you added the patch.  Do you want me to take that patch and \n> continue on?  Or does someone else have something in progress?\n\nI do not plan to.  In general, anything that is only in 'pu' is a\nfair game---when a better alternative appears, or a discussion leads\nto a conclusion that a change is unneeded, they are replaced and/or\ndiscarded.  Just think of them as being kept slightly better record\nof existence than merely being in the list archive, nothing more.\n"},{"id":"357958","messageId":"8849662.cxaaR4pK4i@thunderbird","threadId":"49322","inReplyTo":"8951536.UanLVthjk7@thunderbird","subject":"Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2018, #02; Tue, 11)","fromName":"Stephen & Linda Smith","fromEmail":"ischis2@cox.net","sentAt":"2018-09-12T11:39:34Z","receivedAt":"2018-09-12T11:39:37Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ishchis2@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 12:13:23 AM MST Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Stephen & Linda Smith <ischis2@cox.net> writes:\n> > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:20:19 PM MST Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> >> * jc/wt-status-state-cleanup (2018-09-07) 1 commit\n> >> \n> >>  - WIP: roll wt_status_state into wt_status and populate in the collect\n> >> \n> >> phase (this branch uses ss/wt-status-committable.)\n> >> \n> >> * ss/wt-status-committable (2018-09-07) 4 commits\n> >> \n> >>  - wt-status.c: set the committable flag in the collect phase\n> >>  - t7501: add test of \"commit --dry-run --short\"\n> >>  - wt-status: rename commitable to committable\n> >>  - wt-status.c: move has_unmerged earlier in the file\n> >>  (this branch is used by jc/wt-status-state-cleanup.)\n> > \n> > I note that the jc/wt-status-state-cleanup branch is a patch \"for\n> > illustration purposes only\" [1].\n> > \n> > I was about to update that patch to start dealing with the free() function\n> > calls, but noted you added the patch.  Do you want me to take that patch\n> > and continue on?  Or does someone else have something in progress?\n> \n> I do not plan to.  \nOk ... from the wording I wasn't sure if there wasn't another developer \nworking this.  I will pick up that patch and continue.\n\n> In general, anything that is only in 'pu' is a\n> fair game---when a better alternative appears, or a discussion leads\n> to a conclusion that a change is unneeded, they are replaced and/or\n> discarded.  Just think of them as being kept slightly better record\n> of existence than merely being in the list archive, nothing more.\n\nThanks that confirmed my reading of the Documentation/gitworkflows.txt.\n\n\n\n"}]}