Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #08; Fri, 25)

From

Jeff King <peff@peff.net>

Date

Apr 25, 2014, 23:19 UTC

Message-ID

<20140425231953.GB3855@sigill.intra.peff.net>

In-Reply-To

<xmqqoazpt45p.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:50:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> * jk/external-diff-use-argv-array (2014-04-21) 6 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2014-04-22 at e6d92d7)
>  + run_external_diff: refactor cmdline setup logic
>  + run_external_diff: hoist common bits out of conditional
>  + run_external_diff: drop fflush(NULL)
>  + run_external_diff: clean up error handling
>  + run_external_diff: use an argv_array for the environment
>  + run_external_diff: use an argv_array for the command line
> 
>  Code clean-up.
> 
>  Will keep in 'next' for the remainder of the cycle.

diff --git a/diff.c b/diff.c
index 54d5308..a03744b 100644
--- a/diff.c
+++ b/diff.c
@@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ static void run_external_diff(const char *pgm,
 			      int complete_rewrite,
 			      struct diff_options *o)
 {
-	const char *spawn_arg[10];
+	const char *spawn_arg[11];
 	int retval;
 	const char **arg = &spawn_arg[0];
 	struct diff_queue_struct *q = &diff_queued_diff;

as a fix for maint/2.0.0 in the interim. I can write a commit message
for that if you're interested.

> * fc/publish-vs-upstream (2014-04-21) 8 commits
>  - sha1_name: add support for @{publish} marks
>  - sha1_name: simplify track finding
>  - sha1_name: cleanup interpret_branch_name()
>  - branch: display publish branch
>  - push: add --set-publish option
>  - branch: add --set-publish-to option
>  - Add concept of 'publish' branch
>  - t5516 (fetch-push): fix test restoration
> 
>  Add branch@{publish}; it seems that this is somewhat different from
>  Ram and Peff started working on.  There were many discussion
>  messages going back and forth but it does not appear that the
>  design issues have been worked out among participants yet.

If you are waiting on me, I do not have much else to say on this topic.
@{publish} as specified by Felipe is not useful to me, and I would
continue to pursue @{push} separately as "the remote-tracking branch of
where you would push to". I think there is room for both concepts.

As for the patches themselves, I have not reviewed them carefully, and
would prefer not to. As I mentioned before, though, I would prefer the
short "@{p}" not be taken for @{publish} until it has proven itself.

-Peff