Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.8.0-rc2

From: Max Horn <max@quendi.de>
Date: Mar 12, 2016, 09:11 UTC
Message-ID: <006DA180-E4B6-404E-9377-F2BB41F65591@quendi.de>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr3fiaq9f.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Show 6 quoted lines

> On 11 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> A release candidate Git v2.8.0-rc2 is now available for testing
> at the usual places.  It is comprised of 459 non-merge commits
> since v2.7.0, contributed by 60 people, 19 of which are new faces.
>

[...]

Show 10 quoted lines

> Updates since v2.7
> ------------------
> 
> UI, Workflows & Features
> 
> * It turns out "git clone" over rsync transport has been broken when
>   the source repository has packed references for a long time, and
>   nobody noticed nor complained about it.
> 
> * "branch --delete" has "branch -d" but "push --delete" does not.

This states a problem, but not whether (and how) it was resolved?

[...]

> * Across the transition at around Git version 2.0, the user used to
>   get a pretty loud warning when running "git push" without setting
>   push.default configuration variable.  We no longer warn, given that
>   the transition is over long time ago.

That last sentence sounds weird... perhaps "the transition was completed a long time ago" ? Or "the transition ended a long time ago" ?

Show 12 quoted lines

> 
> * README has been renamed to README.md and its contents got tweaked
>   slightly to make it easier on the eyes.
> 
> 
> Performance, Internal Implementation, Development Support etc.
> 
> * Add a framework to spawn a group of processes in parallel, and use
>   it to run "git fetch --recurse-submodules" in parallel.
> 
> * A slight update to the Makefile to mark "phoney" targets
>   as such correctly.

phoney -> phony ? (it seems in british english you can write "phoney", but according to a quickly Google search this is rarely used in relation to Makefiles; no surprise, given that the corresponding syntax element is ".PHONY" and you are not allowed to spell it differently ;-)

[...]

Show 12 quoted lines

> 
> * Some calls to strcpy(3) triggers a false warning from static
>   analysers that are less intelligent than humans, and reducing the
>   number of these false hits helps us notice real issues.  A few
>   calls to strcpy(3) in test-path-utils that are already safe has
>   been rewritten to avoid false wanings.
> 
> * Some calls to strcpy(3) triggers a false warning from static
>   analysers that are less intelligent than humans, and reducing the
>   number of these false hits helps us notice real issues.  A few
>   calls to strcpy(3) in "git rerere" that are already safe has been
>   rewritten to avoid false wanings.

The above two messages are very similar, only the end differs a bit. Perhaps merge them into one? I.e.. "A few calls to strcpy(3) in test-path-utils and "git rerere" that [...]"

Also: wanings -> warnings

[...]

Show 7 quoted lines

> 
> * Asking gitweb for a nonexistent commit left a warning in the server
>   log.
> 
>   Somebody may want to follow this up with an additional test, perhaps?
>   IIRC, we do test that no Perl warnings are given to the server log,
>   so this should have been caught if our test coverage were good.

That last paragraph seems odd for a changelog?

[...]

> * The underlying machinery used by "ls-files -o" and other commands
>   have been taught not to create empty submodule ref cache for a

have -> has (the machinery is singular)

Cheers, Max