Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2017, #06; Thu, 22)
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 23, 2017, 05:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqo9tfff2w.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <877f03k4tp.fsf@gmail.com>
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
Show 15 quoted lines
> On Thu, Jun 22 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted: > >> * sd/branch-copy (2017-06-18) 3 commits >> - branch: add a --copy (-c) option to go with --move (-m) >> - branch: add test for -m renaming multiple config sections >> - config: create a function to format section headers >> >> "git branch" learned "-c/-C" to create and switch to a new branch >> by copying an existing one. >> >> Has a bit of interaction with two other topics, so perhaps needs to >> wait for them to stabilize a bit more. > > What topics are those? Didn't see any outright conflicts, but might have > missed something. Anything Sahil & I can help with?
Sorry, I write these and then forget the details because I have to tend to many other topics all the time X-<. Perhaps attempting the merge to 'pu' yourself will tell you more?
Show 8 quoted lines
>> * ab/sha1dc (2017-06-07) 2 commits >> ... >> Will keep in 'pu'. >> Impact to the various build and release infrastructure of using >> submodule is not yet fully known, but this lets us dip our toes. > ... > But it's been 1 month kicking around in pu now. What are we gaining from > keeping it there even longer at this point?
Keeping as many things outside 'next' means I have less things I have to worry about ;-)
I am sort of waiting for a success from Windows box at Travis. It hasn't passed for other reasons for a while, though.
Show 13 quoted lines
>> * xz/send-email-batch-size (2017-05-23) 1 commit >> - send-email: --batch-size to work around some SMTP server limit >> >> "git send-email" learned to overcome some SMTP server limitation >> that does not allow many pieces of e-mails to be sent over a single >> session. >> >> Waiting for response. >> cf. <CACBZZX5GYV50rjg9X602JHqFPaoofH9TwDf_-r_MDu8-rmNV6Q@mail.gmail.com> > > I think between <7993e188.d18d.15c3560bcaf.Coremail.zxq_yx_007@163.com> > & <20170523103050.1f7ab7e0@jvn> we have sufficient info about what bug > this solves to try an alternate approach at some other time.
I thought your wish (which I found reasonable) was to record whatever information that would help us in the future in the log message? I was waiting for that to happen.