Re: [PATCH v2 00/30] initial support for multiple hash functions
- From
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
- Date
- Feb 8, 2024, 06:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ZcRwlUdKbM6bEVmr@tanuki>
- In-Reply-To
- <owlymssbn6qa.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com>
On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 04:24:13PM -0800, Linus Arver wrote:
Show 24 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > > > "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> This addresses all of the known test failures from v1 of this set of > >> changes. In particular I have reworked commit_tree_extended which > >> was flagged by smatch, -Werror=array-bounds, and the leak detector. > >> > >> One functional bug was fixed in repo_for_each_abbrev where it was > >> mistakenly displaying too many ambiguous oids. > >> > >> I am posting this so that people review and testing of this patchset > >> won't be distracted by the known and fixed issues. > > > > We haven't seen any reviews on this second round, and have had it > > outside 'next' for too long. I am tempted to say that we merge it > > to 'next' and see if anybody screams at this point. > > FWIW out of all the "Needs review" topics this one seemed like the most > deserving of another pair of eyes, and I was planning to review some of > the patches here this week + the weekend. If my review takes too long > (taking longer than this weekend) I can give another update next week > saying "too hard for me, please don't wait for me" to unblock you from > merging to next.
I completely lost track of this patch series. So same for me: I don't want to hold it up, but would be happy to give it a pair of eyes next week.
Patrick