From: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:06:25 GMT
Subject: Re: git diff-tree commit detail bug in 2.0.2 and 2.0.3
Message-ID: <CAGyf7-HK74YuqhrRDJ46qti17UNAd6Bp6if4y+ZwUV_PZs2ujQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqegx53txe.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>>> Yeah, I'm fine with a straight revert, too (I think it is fine to keep
>>>> in master, though). I think jk/alloc-commit-id is built right on top of
>>>> the original commit-slab topic, so it should be easy to do either way.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for dealing with it.
>>>
>>> Whatever we do, perhaps it is worth applying the test below on top?
>>
>> Yeah, thanks.  I think that is a good idea.  I was preparing a patch
>> to tuck your minimum reproduction at the end of 4202, but your version
>> and placement makes good sense.
>
> OK, I pushed out updated 'maint' and 'master'.  The former merges
> a rebased version of jk/alloc-commit-id in to make the "reorganize
> the way we manage the in-core commit data" topic, and the latter
> reverts the "Use SSE to micro-optimize a leaf function to check the
> format of a ref string".
>
> Please give them some quick sanity check.
>
> Thanks.

Thanks both of you; I appreciate your efforts! I've run my suite of
tests against the tips of master and maint and all 681 pass for each.
Looks good to me.

Best regards,
Bryan Turner