From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:11:41 GMT
Subject: Re: git diff-tree commit detail bug in 2.0.2 and 2.0.3
Message-ID: <xmqqegx53txe.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqppgp4a7x.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

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

>>> Yeah, I'm fine with a straight revert, too (I think it is fine to keep
>>> in master, though). I think jk/alloc-commit-id is built right on top of
>>> the original commit-slab topic, so it should be easy to do either way.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for dealing with it.
>>
>> Whatever we do, perhaps it is worth applying the test below on top?
>
> Yeah, thanks.  I think that is a good idea.  I was preparing a patch
> to tuck your minimum reproduction at the end of 4202, but your version
> and placement makes good sense.

OK, I pushed out updated 'maint' and 'master'.  The former merges
a rebased version of jk/alloc-commit-id in to make the "reorganize
the way we manage the in-core commit data" topic, and the latter
reverts the "Use SSE to micro-optimize a leaf function to check the
format of a ref string".

Please give them some quick sanity check.

Thanks.