Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2011, #06; Thu, 31)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 1, 2011, 15:26 UTC
Message-ID: <20110401152623.GA4553@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7v62qzhqp4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 03:26:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> * jk/maint-remote-mirror-safer (2011-03-30) 3 commits
>  - remote: deprecate --mirror
>  - remote: separate the concept of push and fetch mirrors
>  - remote: disallow some nonsensical option combinations
> 
> * jk/notes-ui-updates (2011-03-30) 7 commits
>  - log/pretty-options: Document --[no-]notes and deprecate old notes options
>  - revision.c: make --no-notes reset --notes list
>  - revision.c: support --notes command-line option
>  - notes: refactor display notes default handling
>  - notes: refactor display notes extra refs field
>  - revision.c: refactor notes ref expansion
>  - notes: make expand_notes_ref globally accessible

Both probably post-1.7.5 material. I am of course tempted to get new options in place ASAP (since the sooner they are in, the sooner script writers can say "they are in long enough" and start using them). But I don't think either is critical.

> * jk/edit-notes-in-commit-log (2011-03-07) 2 commits
>  - [wip] commit: allow editing notes in commit message editor
>  - notes: make expand_notes_ref globally accessible

You may want to drop this for now. The bottom one is in jk/notes-ui-updates, which hopefully will go to master soon after 1.7.5, and the top one is going to be rewritten.

Show 7 quoted lines

> * jk/maint-merge-rename-create (2011-03-25) 3 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2011-03-31 at b9bc9f1)
>  + merge: turn on rewrite detection
>  + merge: handle renames with replacement content
>  + t3030: fix accidental success in symlink rename
> 
> May merge before rc1, but it is Ok to wait.

I would hold off on this. I _think_ it's fine, but I would really prefer for it to get more exposure in 'next' to shake out any bugs.

Show 7 quoted lines

> * jk/pull-into-empty (2011-03-25) 2 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2011-03-31 at d4dd598)
>  + pull: do not clobber untracked files on initial pull
>  + merge: merge unborn index before setting ref
> 
> This is low impact, isolated, and has no risk of major regression. Will
> merge before rc1.

Agreed.

Show 12 quoted lines

> * jc/add-u-migration (2011-03-22) 3 commits
>  - add: make "add -u/-A" update full tree without pathspec (step 3)
>  - add: make "add -u/-A" update full tree without pathspec (step 2)
>   (merged to 'next' on 2011-03-31 at 962e058)
>  + add: make "add -u/-A" update full tree without pathspec
> 
> The bottom one is a necessary first step toward the UI clean-up planned
> for 1.8.0 which we discussed in length in the earlier part of the cycle;
> the change is low impact, isolated, and has no risk of breaking the system
> as a whole, but I would wait until the ":/" magic pathspec materializes,
> as the advice message would have to become different, and the way to get
> more stable semantics will become more direct.

I have been meaning to look closer at this. Were you wanting to get the first stage of the transition into 1.7.5?

Show 7 quoted lines

> * jk/progress-with-pager (2011-03-24) 4 commits
>  - diff: turn on rename detection progress reporting
>  - show: turn on rename detection progress reporting
>  - progress: use pager's original_stderr if available
>  - pager: save the original stderr when redirecting to pager
> 
> Will cook until 1.7.5 final.

I'm not sure if this whole thing should be scrapped. There are potential problems with starting a pager that wants to grab the whole screen (i.e., not less). Maybe it would be enough to have a pager.noprogress option for people who use such a pager.

-Peff