Re: [PATCH 0/3] update sha1dc
- From
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 6, 2017, 18:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACBZZX485+W99mRspDTf09LjP-C26PaAi+vNSBkW_aVyXAsQJg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kaaRsUBAxRKLPxjuk=oRrw2zBdoHWd9iNDmTbY9MpqN-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@gmail.com> wrote: >> This updates sha1dc fixing the issue on Cygwin introduced in 2.13.1, >> and hopefully not regressing elsewhere. Liam, it would be much >> appreciated if you could test this on SPARC. >> >> As before the "sha1dc: update from upstream" patch is what should >> fast-track to master/maint and be in 2.13.2, the other two are the >> cooking submodule use, that's all unchanged aside from of course the >> submodule pointing to the same upstream commit as the code import >> itself does. >> >> Junio: There's a whitespace change to sha1.h that am warns about, but >> which it applies anyway that you didn't apply from my previous >> patch. I think it probably makes sense to just take upstream's >> whitespace shenanigans as-is instead of seeing that diff every time we >> update. I guess we could also send them a pull request... > > I would suggest the pull request.
Looking at this again it's not a bug, just upstream choosing to indent a comment with spaces, not a bug.
So it makes sense to just apply as-is so we don't have that diff with them / different sha1s on the files etc.
Show 5 quoted lines
> Also as to not make the mistake from before that I jump on the > submodule bandwagon here: > Patch 1 ought to go in its on series/patch, so with that out the way > we have more time to consider the pros and cons of the rest of > the series?
Yes it makes perfect sense to just take the 1st patch here and make the submodule changes cook. This is just how I submitted it the last time and Junio took the 1st patch into a maint topic, so I figured I'd send it like this again.