Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2015, #05; Mon, 22)

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 23, 2015, 17:24 UTC
Message-ID: <3fe144b0808827da3efbfcc44ad43524@www.dscho.org>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqzj3re4u5.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Hi Junio,

On 2015-06-23 00:49, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> * js/rebase-i-clean-up-upon-continue-to-skip (2015-06-18) 3 commits
>  - rebase -i: do not leave a CHERRY_PICK_HEAD file behind
>  - SQUASH: test_must_fail is a shell function
>  - t3404: demonstrate CHERRY_PICK_HEAD bug
> 
>  Abandoning an already applied change in "git rebase -i" with
>  "--continue" left CHERRY_PICK_HEAD and confused later steps.
> 
>  Expecting a reroll.
>  ($gmane/271856)

Actually, there had been two re-rolls, and v3 seemed to be okay: $gmane/272037. It also looks as if 726a35ebd^..726a35ebd^2 is identical with v3... Anything you want me to change in addition?

Also:

Show 22 quoted lines

> * js/fsck-opt (2015-06-22) 19 commits
>  - fsck: support ignoring objects in `git fsck` via fsck.skiplist
>  - fsck: git receive-pack: support excluding objects from fsck'ing
>  - fsck: introduce `git fsck --connectivity-only`
>  - fsck: support demoting errors to warnings
>  - fsck: document the new receive.fsck.<msg-id> options
>  - fsck: allow upgrading fsck warnings to errors
>  - fsck: optionally ignore specific fsck issues completely
>  - fsck: disallow demoting grave fsck errors to warnings
>  - fsck: add a simple test for receive.fsck.<msg-id>
>  - fsck: make fsck_tag() warn-friendly
>  - fsck: handle multiple authors in commits specially
>  - fsck: make fsck_commit() warn-friendly
>  - fsck: make fsck_ident() warn-friendly
>  - fsck: report the ID of the error/warning
>  - fsck (receive-pack): allow demoting errors to warnings
>  - fsck: offer a function to demote fsck errors to warnings
>  - fsck: provide a function to parse fsck message IDs
>  - fsck: introduce identifiers for fsck messages
>  - fsck: introduce fsck options
> 
>  Rerolled (at v7) and seems more or less ready for 'next'.

I see that you used `downcased` instead of my `lowercased`, which makes more sense, but the style of the multi-line `for` loop as per `pu` is still as *I* wrote it... I also saw that you downcased the first letter after `fsck:` in the commit messages, and touched up the message of the "report the ID of the error/warning" commit. Do you want to touch up the `for` loop style in "offer a function to demote fsck errors to warnings" or shall I send a v8 (it is ready to go: https://github.com/dscho/git/compare/next...fsck-api)?

Ciao, Dscho