Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2023, #08; Mon, 25)

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 27, 2023, 14:38 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD2YbYH5aZEG5NX8HLe9VeEQ+NhBfiZ9Mhy3UXTUrab3ug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpm25pxkh.fsf@gitster.g>

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 4:25 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> * ks/ref-filter-mailmap (2023-09-25) 3 commits
>  - ref-filter: add mailmap support
>  - t/t6300: introduce test_bad_atom
>  - t/t6300: cleanup test_atom
>
>  "git for-each-ref" and friends learn to apply mailmap to authorname
>  and other fields.
>
>  Will merge to 'next'.
>  source: <20230925175050.3498-1-five231003@gmail.com>

Great!

Show 10 quoted lines

> * ps/revision-cmdline-stdin-not (2023-09-25) 1 commit
>  - revision: make pseudo-opt flags read via stdin behave consistently
>
>  "git rev-list --stdin" learned to take non-revisions (like "--not")
>  recently from the standard input, but the way such a "--not" was
>  handled was quite confusing, which has been rethought.  This is
>  potentially a change that breaks backward compatibility.
>
>  Will merge to 'next'?
>  source: <6221acd2796853144f8e84081655fbc79fdc6634.1695646898.git.ps@pks.im>

The patch LGTM too.

> * cc/repack-sift-filtered-objects-to-separate-pack (2023-09-25) 10 commits
>  - SQUASH??? t0080 is already taken

Yeah, it's taken by js/doc-unit-tests. I am Ok with using t0081 or something else if someone has a better suggestion. Not sure if I should resend a v8 or if you would be Ok with just squashing this yourself when merging.

Show 15 quoted lines

>  - gc: add `gc.repackFilterTo` config option
>  - repack: implement `--filter-to` for storing filtered out objects
>  - gc: add `gc.repackFilter` config option
>  - repack: add `--filter=<filter-spec>` option
>  - pack-bitmap-write: rebuild using new bitmap when remapping
>  - repack: refactor finding pack prefix
>  - repack: refactor finishing pack-objects command
>  - t/helper: add 'find-pack' test-tool
>  - pack-objects: allow `--filter` without `--stdout`
>
>  "git repack" machinery learns to pay attention to the "--filter="
>  option.
>
>  Looking better.
>  source: <20230925152517.803579-1-christian.couder@gmail.com>

Show 21 quoted lines

> * cc/git-replay (2023-09-07) 15 commits
>  - replay: stop assuming replayed branches do not diverge
>  - replay: add --contained to rebase contained branches
>  - replay: add --advance or 'cherry-pick' mode
>  - replay: disallow revision specific options and pathspecs
>  - replay: use standard revision ranges
>  - replay: make it a minimal server side command
>  - replay: remove HEAD related sanity check
>  - replay: remove progress and info output
>  - replay: add an important FIXME comment about gpg signing
>  - replay: don't simplify history
>  - replay: introduce pick_regular_commit()
>  - replay: die() instead of failing assert()
>  - replay: start using parse_options API
>  - replay: introduce new builtin
>  - t6429: remove switching aspects of fast-rebase
>
>  Waiting for review response.
>  cf. <52277471-4ddd-b2e0-62ca-c2a5b59ae418@gmx.de>
>  cf. <58daa706-7efb-51dd-9061-202ef650b96a@gmx.de>
>  cf. <f0e75d47-c277-9fbb-7bcd-53e4e5686f3c@gmx.de>

As no one replied to Dscho and Derrick seems to not be working on Git anymore, I think I will just send a new version implementing Dscho's suggestions.

>  May want to wait until tb/repack-existing-packs-cleanup stabilizes.
>  source: <20230907092521.733746-1-christian.couder@gmail.com>

Not sure I understand this. Did you mistake the "replay" series with the "repack --filter" series? In any case tb/repack-existing-packs-cleanup was merged to master.