Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2010, #01; Tue, 9)

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 9, 2010, 21:38 UTC
Message-ID: <m3iq06fa9i.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <7vbp5ymfyo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Here are the topics that have been cooking.  Commits prefixed with '-' are
> only in 'pu' while commits prefixed with '+' are in 'next'.  The ones
> marked with '.' do not appear in any of the integration branches, but I am
> still holding onto them.

Show 5 quoted lines

> * tr/config-doc (2010-10-24) 2 commits
>  . Documentation: complete config list from other manpages
>  . Documentation: Move variables from config.txt to separate file
> 
> This unfortunately heavily conflicts with patches in flight...

The first patch in series is trivial to re-create: just put description of variables into separate file, and replace it with include. Probably could even be scripted.

Which version of "complete config list" script did you pick? There was some unresolved discussion about how best to proceed (following versus not-following includes, limiting to "Config.*" sections, etc.)

BTW., IMHO not following includes would be better solution.

Show 6 quoted lines

> * jh/gitweb-caching (2010-11-01) 4 commits
>  - gitweb: Minimal testing of gitweb caching
>  - gitweb: File based caching layer (from git.kernel.org)
>  - gitweb: add output buffering and associated functions
>  - gitweb: Prepare for splitting gitweb
>  (this branch uses jn/gitweb-test.)

Show 7 quoted lines

> * jn/gitweb-test (2010-09-26) 4 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2010-11-05 at 90b3adf)
>  + gitweb/Makefile: Include gitweb/config.mak
>  + gitweb/Makefile: Add 'test' and 'test-installed' targets
>  + t/gitweb-lib.sh: Add support for GITWEB_TEST_INSTALLED
>  + gitweb: Move call to evaluate_git_version after evaluate_gitweb_config
>  (this branch is used by jh/gitweb-caching.)

These two branches have simple to resolve but non-trivial conflict. Should I rebase 'jh/gitweb-caching' on top of 'jn/gitweb-test' then, resolving this conflict?

BTW. this would allow me to improve 'gitweb: Minimal testing of gitweb caching'.

Show 6 quoted lines

> * yd/dir-rename (2010-10-29) 5 commits
>  - Allow hiding renames of individual files involved in a directory rename.
>  - Unified diff output format for bulk moves.
>  - Add testcases for the --detect-bulk-moves diffcore flag.
>  - Raw diff output format for bulk moves.
>  - Introduce bulk-move detection in diffcore.

Very interesting!

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git