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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 2, 2020, 21:36 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqv9ensao7.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2011020333440.18437@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> 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.

Thanks.