Re: What's not in 'master', and likely not to be until 1.5.4

From: Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@telecom.at>
Date: Jan 18, 2008, 22:07 UTC
Message-ID: <20080118220735.B7F4B49B15@dx.sixt.local>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.1.00.0801181948060.5731@racer.site>

[Don't have Cc: in KNode. oh well...]

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> BTW, how would you like to have a 40+ patch series presented that
>> implements the port to MinGW? Should I send to the ML despite its volume?
>> (Of course not before 1.5.4 is released.)
>> 
>> The current state of the series is available here:
>> http://repo.or.cz/w/git/mingw/j6t.git?a=shortlog;h=upstream
> 
> Comments from reading the patches briefly (since there are 42 patches, it
> needs quite some time to even do it briefly):

Thanks a lot!

I agree with everything I didn't quote from your message.

Show 22 quoted lines

> - Possibly some of these commits could be folded back into
>   f90524e(Add target architecture MinGW):
> 
>   96a27f1(MinGW: Implement gettimeofday()),
>   2e05f891(Implement a rudimentary poll() emulation for Windows),
>   142bda0(Fake implementions of getpwuid(), getuid(), and getpwnam() for
> Windows),
>   e799caf(Implement setitimer() and sigaction()),
>   075fee7(Implement a wrapper of execve that can invoke shell scripts),
>   495f0af(Work around misbehaved rename() on Windows),
>   34cf7fd(Implement a pipe() replacement whose ends are not inherited to
> children),
>   4504323(Implement start_command() for Windows),
>   b8e84a6(Implement a work-around for a misbehaved vsnprintf on Windows),
>   08bbcb4(Windows: always chmod(, 0666) before unlink()),
>   f6bbf12(Windows: Implement a wrapper of the open() function),
>   56cedf3(Windows: Fix PRIuMAX definition),
>   7458a97(Windows: Implement wrappers for gethostbyname(), socket(), and
> connect()),
>   ef25947(Windows: Fix ntohl() related warnings about printf formatting),
>   b9db7ad(Windows: Implement a custom spawnve()), and
>   47dacb3(compat/pread.c: Add foward decl to fix warning)

This would become a gigantic patch, which I really dislike. It's much easier to follow (and bisect) if things appear in smaller pieces.

Show 7 quoted lines

> - d6596ed(gitk: Disable msgfmt on MinGW) and
>   004fb4b(Fix renaming .gitk-new to .gitk on Windows if there is already a
> .gitk)
>   are gitk patches.
>   Further, I think that d6596ed would be better done as an automatic
>   detection of msgfmt's presence; on my Eee PC, there is no msgfmt
>   either...

Let's do that later.

Show 7 quoted lines

> - 20fd16e(Windows: Use a customized struct stat that also has the
> st_blocks member) should be folded into
>   6f97065(Add a new lstat and fstat implementation based on Win32 API)
>   (with a comment that you customized the struct stat, too)
> 
>   But then, without 20fd16e, git does not compile, so again I would rather
>   fold that back into the MinGW commit.

The custom lstat() implementation cannot come after the custom struct stat because we can't call Windows's stat() with a custom struct stat. But I also don't want the custom lstat() in the code from the beginning because it's merely an optimization.

> - in git.git, the onelines are not terminated by "."

You mean commit messages?

> - I'd prefer f90524e(Add target architecture MinGW) to come last.
>   Alternatively, you could cut out the Makefile change so that the series
>   is still bisectable: MinGW will just not be supported until the very
>   end.

I strongly disagree. The series is completely bisectable on *nix. But if the Makefile change comes last, it becomes difficult to bisect on MinGW.

Show 10 quoted lines

> $ git grep __MINGW j6t/upstream
> 
> comes up with 26 hits.
> 
> The first of them: cache.h:381, function is_absolute_path().  That just
> cries out loud to be "#ifdef DOS_STYLE_PATHS" instead of "#ifdef
> __MINGW32__".
> 
> I guess there should also be -DHAS_NO_FORK_BUT_THREADS -DHAS_TMP_AND_TEMP
> -DHAS_WINSOCK2, but most of them look like -DDOS_STYLE_PATHS to me.

Doesn't this go too far? How many systems are there where not all of them would be set at the same time?

-- Hannes