Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2013, #06; Tue, 27)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Aug 27, 2013, 20:51 UTC
Message-ID: <20130827205125.GA23783@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsixvaqh5.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:22:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> * jk/config-int-range-check (2013-08-21) 2 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2013-08-22 at 465efb3)
>  + teach git-config to output large integers
>  + config: properly range-check integer values
> 
>  Originally merged to 'next' on 2013-08-22
> 
>  "git config --int section.var 3g" should somehow diagnose that the
>  number does not fit in "int" (on 32-bit platforms anyway) but it
>  did not.
> 
>  Will cook in 'next'.

I think Jonathan had some concerns about the test in the first one, and there was an open question in the second of whether we wanted to add something like --ulong, call it something more agnostic like --file-size, or simply teach --int to use 64-bit integers everywhere for simplicity.

Thoughts?

Show 5 quoted lines

> * jk/mailmap-incomplete-line (2013-08-25) 2 commits
>  - mailmap: avoid allocation when reading from blob
>  - mailmap: handle mailmap blobs without trailing newlines
> 
>  Will merge to 'next'.

Did you want me to squash these? The second one more or less eradicates the changes made to the first one. I mainly did them separately in case we were going to only do the first half on maint.

> * jk/write-broken-index-with-nul-sha1 (2013-08-26) 1 commit
>  - write_index: optionally allow broken null sha1s
> 
>  Am I waiting for another reroll?

Yep, just sent v3.

Show 12 quoted lines

> [Stalled]
> [...]
> * jk/list-objects-sans-blobs (2013-06-06) 4 commits
>  . archive: ignore blob objects when checking reachability
>  . list-objects: optimize "revs->blob_objects = 0" case
>  . upload-archive: restrict remote objects with reachability check
>  . clear parsed flag when we free tree buffers
> 
>  Attempt to allow "archive --remote=$there $arbitrary_sha1" while
>  keeping the reachability safety.
> 
>  Seems to break some tests in a trivial and obvious way.

You can probably discard this one (though you may want to take the bottom as a separate cleanup). I think we decided that the right strategy is to do the ":" split as we do now, but then do the normal commit-level reachability check on the left-hand side. I just haven't gotten around to writing the code yet.

-Peff