Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2016, #06; Mon, 24)

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2016, 18:13 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kb2XD8+y-Y_oiwSj3DsXjmTS=bd6fj5dn9NADmvDO5xtQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqoa28s63l.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>> One of the initial ways to work around the bugfix was to
>>
>>     git clone . root # <- add in this step and it works again.
>>     git clone root super
>>
>> but instead I will do the preparation for the 'super' project not
>> in '.' but in 'root', just called differently ("super_remote" ?)
>>
>> An additional new test for cloning from '.' will be introduced, too.
>>
>> I plan on working on that with highest priority for git after finishing
>> some attr stuff that I currently have open. So expect a patch (or two)
>> this week.
>
> Hmph, I personally would prefer to defer the "correct behaviour for
> /." part for the next cycle, which is why I wrote:

Ok. The first 2 patches are in good shape for this cycle, though. And the /. thing will wait until next cycle then, i.e. I can drop priority as I wish

Show 32 quoted lines

>
>  - the "off-by-one fix" part of sb/submodule-ignore-trailing-slash
>    needs to be in the upcoming release but the "trailing /. in base
>    should not affect the resolution of ../relative/path" part that
>    is still under discussion can wait.  Which means we'd need a few
>    more !MINGW prerequisites in the tests by -rc0.
>
> at the beginning of the message you are responding to, and I also
> thought that was consistent and in agreement with what you said
> earlier in <CAGZ79kaq85c1Gk1aRSrdQGp1Nm9p6tN0jXbFvTN0v+9ehooxYg@mail.gmail.com>
>
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > There isn't enough time to include this topic in the upcoming
>> > release within the current https://tinyurl.com/gitCal calendar,
>> > however, which places the final on Nov 11th.
>> >
>> > I am wondering if it makes sense to delay 2.11 by moving the final
>> > by 4 weeks to Dec 9th.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Speaking of what to and not to include in the upcoming release, we
>> > do want to include Stefan's off-by-one fix to the submodule-helper,
>> > but that is blocked on Windows end due to the test.
>>
>> I'd be happy either way, i.e. we could revert that fix and make a release?
>> AFAICT, Windows only has broken tests, not broken functionality with that
>> submodule bug fix.
>
> to which I responded in <xmqqpomp33km.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

and you said:

> It of course needs help from
> Windows folks to validate the results.

So maybe instead of adding !MINGW we rather want to apply https://public-inbox.org/git/2908451e-4273-8826-8989-5572263cc283@kdbg.org/ instead for now?