Re: ag/merge-strategies-in-c, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2020, #04; Tue, 27)

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> * ag/merge-strategies-in-c (2020-10-06) 11 commits
> >>  - sequencer: use the "octopus" merge strategy without forking
> >>  - sequencer: use the "resolve" strategy without forking
> >>  - merge: use the "octopus" strategy without forking
> >>  - merge: use the "resolve" strategy without forking
> >>  - merge-octopus: rewrite in C
> >>  - merge-recursive: move better_branch_name() to merge.c
> >>  - merge-resolve: rewrite in C
> >>  - merge-index: don't fork if the requested program is `git-merge-one-file'
> >>  - merge-index: libify merge_one_path() and merge_all()
> >>  - merge-one-file: rewrite in C
> >>  - t6027: modernise tests
> >>
> >>  The resolve and octopus merge strategy backends have been rewritten
> >>  in C.
> >
> > From where I sit, this is ready for `next`.
>
> I just went back to the thread.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20201005122646.27994-1-alban.gruin@gmail.com/
>
> It seems that the topic saw quite a few comments and help by Phillip
> Wood in its earliest iteration, but I didn't see any review from
> those other than myself on the last iteration v3, and the review
> comments on the iteration haven't been acted upon yet.
>
> That was why I threw the topic in "needs review" bucket.  The later
> half of the series got no comments (I lost steam after reviewing the
> earlier half) and I suspect they would have be adjusted for fixes
> and improvements done to polish the earlier parts, so I am not sure
> where your "ready for 'next'" comes from.