Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2013, #05; Thu, 26)

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Jan 2, 2014, 20:47 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cQ79qbEDai69T7pwvdTRk9rHBE5aSAKMZuOtwCw5qKPzQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vmwjmj628.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> [New Topics]
>>
>> Would $gmane/239575 [1] be of interest for "New Topics"?
>>
>> [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/239575/
>
> Actually I was planning to scoop it up directly to master but forgot
> to do so.

Make sense.

> Running "git diff maint pu -- name-hash.c" shows that we have added
> a comment that mentions index_name_exists---that needs to be
> adjusted, too, by the way.

Oops, yes, I had noticed that too when testing atop 'pu' but then forgot about it when preparing the patch for submission on 'master'.

I'm not sure how to move forward with this now that kb/fast-hashmap, with which it has a textual conflict, has graduated to 'next'. Should this become a two-patch series with one for scooping directly to 'master' and one for 'next' to sit atop kb/fast-hashmap? (But how will the textual conflict be handled?)