Re: ag/merge-strategies-in-c, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2020, #04; Tue, 27)
- From
Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 2, 2020, 22:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <693f417c-5612-7878-a055-2810f62af3b4@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqv9ensao7.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
Hi Junio & Johannes,
Le 02/11/2020 à 22:36, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
Show 39 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>> * ag/merge-strategies-in-c (2020-10-06) 11 commits >>> - sequencer: use the "octopus" merge strategy without forking >>> - sequencer: use the "resolve" strategy without forking >>> - merge: use the "octopus" strategy without forking >>> - merge: use the "resolve" strategy without forking >>> - merge-octopus: rewrite in C >>> - merge-recursive: move better_branch_name() to merge.c >>> - merge-resolve: rewrite in C >>> - merge-index: don't fork if the requested program is `git-merge-one-file' >>> - merge-index: libify merge_one_path() and merge_all() >>> - merge-one-file: rewrite in C >>> - t6027: modernise tests >>> >>> The resolve and octopus merge strategy backends have been rewritten >>> in C. >> >> From where I sit, this is ready for `next`. > > I just went back to the thread. > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20201005122646.27994-1-alban.gruin@gmail.com/ > > It seems that the topic saw quite a few comments and help by Phillip > Wood in its earliest iteration, but I didn't see any review from > those other than myself on the last iteration v3, and the review > comments on the iteration haven't been acted upon yet. > > That was why I threw the topic in "needs review" bucket. The later > half of the series got no comments (I lost steam after reviewing the > earlier half) and I suspect they would have be adjusted for fixes > and improvements done to polish the earlier parts, so I am not sure > where your "ready for 'next'" comes from. > > Thanks. >
Sorry, I am short on time to work on this these days, but I’m still planning to apply Junio’s latest suggestions. So I agree with you, this is not yet ready for `next'.
Cheers, Alban