Re: nd/setup

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 9, 2010, 00:13 UTC
Message-ID: <20100409001322.GB23501@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100408214233.GA32441@progeny.tock>

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:42:33PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> >> * nd/setup (2010-04-05) 43 commits
> [...]
> > 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.
> 
> I don’t think it’s anywhere near master material yet.

To clarify, I don't think that either. But sitting in pu, nobody is even running it. This seems to me like the sort of topic where there will be a lot of unintended fallouts. Besides review, the best way to find them is to get people running it, and 'next' is the most bleeding-edge we have.

> when run outside any repository.  Probably the checker should be
> configured by an environment variable that indicates where to print
> its messages and whether to bail out when a problem is detected (for
> tests).

Yeah, that sounds reasonable, especially if merging this to 'next' would make git unusable. We want to shake out bugs, not punish people running next. :) But I haven't even really looked at the topic in detail yet.

> Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings,

Not at all. This is exactly the sort of in-depth review that is very helpful. Thanks.

-Peff