Re: [PATCH 0/11] Misc. pull/merge/am improvements

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Dec 28, 2006, 08:42 UTC
Message-ID: <20061228084245.GA18150@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vmz58whnx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

> Actually I am getting more greedy, and would not mind to have
> clean ups and a few more features in the new release, even the
> ones that we have talked about but have not implemented.

I know Linus wants me to fix the bash completion so it adds a trailing space when something gets completed and is unique and no additional text is expected to follow for that argument. I just haven't put the effort into it, even though I think I have a solution.

Basically I'm saying I probably could have another round of bash
completion in another week which may be worth considering for
inclusion.  ;-)

> I am very tempted to have sliding window mmap() if it helps
> people on cygwin, for example.

Especially now that NO_MMAP is the default on that platform. At this point it may be ready to graduate to next to try and get a wider audience. Since fixing that segfault in pack-objects I can't break it. Of course I couldn't break it before you found that error, so take my words with a grain of salt... ;-)

> Also, I've been running with
> "next" for my daily pushes and pulls without trouble, and I am
> very tempted to push out the shallow-clone topic.

Hasn't that been in next for a while now? I pretty much always run next, and have also been using it on that non-publishable repository for almost two months now. I've got 20 other users who I collaborate with on cygwin running next... we haven't had any issue with the portions of shallow-clone which had already moved in, and I upgrade that environment almost daily to keep current. Of course we also haven't tried to actually use the shallow-clone feature as we haven't needed it (the repository is only 50 MiB packed).

Show 5 quoted lines

> Although I do find the detached HEAD attractive and would want
> to have it eventually, I suspect that even if it materializes
> soon enough, it would at least need a couple of weeks of testing
> in 'next', so making -rc1 wait for it might push back the
> release a bit too much.

Agreed. It would be nice to implement, expecially for a major release like 1.5.0. I don't think its that difficult to do, we've all just been distracted by other topics and nobody has put code forward for it. If a well-written implementation materialized in the next few days it might get enough cooking time before rc1 to include it.

-- 
Shawn.