Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2010, #03; Wed, 07)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 8, 2010, 07:38 UTC
Message-ID: <20100408073825.GA15153@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7v6342ahx9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:48:02PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> * jc/test-sleepless (2010-04-06) 1 commit
>   (merged to 'next' on 2010-04-07 at 8ccf40a)
>  + war on "sleep" in tests

I read this one, and it looked fine to me.

Show 10 quoted lines

> * sd/log-decorate (2010-04-06) 4 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2010-04-06 at 992c9ad)
>  + log --pretty/--oneline: ignore log.decorate
>   (merged to 'next' on 2010-03-08 at 58a6fba)
>  + log.decorate: usability fixes
>  + Add `log.decorate' configuration variable.
>  + git_config_maybe_bool()
> 
> I did the tip one myself.  An extra set or two of eyeballs would be
> appreciated.

I just responded in that thread.

Show 9 quoted lines

> * jk/cached-textconv (2010-04-01) 7 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2010-04-02 at a023e3c)
>  + diff: avoid useless filespec population
>  + diff: cache textconv output
>  + textconv: refactor calls to run_textconv
>  + introduce notes-cache interface
>  + make commit_tree a library function
>  + fix textconv leak in emit_rewrite_diff
>  + fix const-correctness of write_sha1_file

You mentioned pushing this off to 1.7.2. I don't have a problem with that, but you may want to cherry-pick or merge up to the "fix textconv leak", as it is an unrelated fix.

I think it makes sense to target 1.7.2 with the feature, and then flip the default for diff.*.cachetextconv to 'true' in 1.7.3. That will give it some wider exposure before we start running it by default.

> * nd/setup (2010-04-05) 43 commits
> [...]
> Rerolled.  I need to look at this series during the feature freeze so that
> we can decide to (or not to) include it in 'next' early in post 1.7.1 cycle.

I really should review this, but it's just so dauntingly large and boring looking that I haven't gotten around to it. Probably one or both of us should look at it before applying it to next, but assuming it passes a basic sanity check, I think the best thing will be to get it in 'next' early so we can shake out any bugs during the next cycle.

-Peff