Hi,
I am looking at the MinGW port, and I see some rather strange changes included in the port; "strange" in the sense that they do not appear to have anything to do with MinGW.
I am referring, for example, to the changes from commit dc380d6, which were reverted in Git mainline (actually in "next", they never reached Git's "master"). Or to the changes from 4493e36, which had the same fate.
Are these intentional? Or are they the result of some strange mismerge?
-az
Junio C HamanoRe: MinGW port: some questions
Alon Ziv <alonz@nolaviz.org> writes:
> I am referring, for example, to the changes from commit dc380d6, which > were reverted in Git mainline (actually in "next", they never reached > Git's "master"). Or to the changes from 4493e36, which had the same > fate.
MinGW repository bases its work on my 'next', so it will not be pulled wholesale to my 'master'. The plan is to trickle down the platform independent bits of fixes and refactoring to the mainline, as well as #ifdef __MINGW32__ and $(findstring MINGW) parts, but that will most likely happen as a series of bite sized patch series to the list with public reviews.
I do not know if you mistyped dc380d6 (I do not find it there), but reverting 4493e36 (merge of jc/3way) was intentional. The work in that commit that deviates from the mainline is the jc/3way topic, which turned out to be incomplete and not very usable. MinGW tree might not have synchronized with the latest from the mainline in which case it might not have merged the revert from me yet, and that may be why you are seeing the differences.
Re: MinGW port: some questions
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 12:09 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I do not know if you mistyped dc380d6 (I do not find it there),
I did; it was dc3806d. I don't know how it slipped... I usually cut'n'paste commit IDs :-/
> but reverting 4493e36 (merge of jc/3way) was intentional. The > work in that commit that deviates from the mainline is the > jc/3way topic, which turned out to be incomplete and not very > usable.
I know it was intentional; but the revert happened on Feb 13, and the MinGW port is supposed to be merged up to v1.5.1. The revert of dc3806d ("in_merge_bases(): optimization") and 40e0e66 ("merge_base(): move traversal into a separate function.") also happened on Feb 13, and both of there commits are still present in the MinGW master branch.
Maybe I'll just try cherry-picking the port's commits on top of the latest master, and see if anything breaks :)
-az
Johannes SixtRe: MinGW port: some questions
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Alon Ziv <alonz@nolaviz.org> writes: > > > I am referring, for example, to the changes from commit dc380d6, which > > were reverted in Git mainline (actually in "next", they never reached > > Git's "master"). Or to the changes from 4493e36, which had the same > > fate. > > MinGW repository bases its work on my 'next', so it will not be > pulled wholesale to my 'master'. The plan is to trickle down > the platform independent bits of fixes and refactoring to the > mainline, as well as #ifdef __MINGW32__ and $(findstring MINGW) > parts, but that will most likely happen as a series of bite > sized patch series to the list with public reviews. > > I do not know if you mistyped dc380d6 (I do not find it there), > but reverting 4493e36 (merge of jc/3way) was intentional. The > work in that commit that deviates from the mainline is the > jc/3way topic, which turned out to be incomplete and not very > usable. MinGW tree might not have synchronized with the latest > from the mainline in which case it might not have merged the > revert from me yet, and that may be why you are seeing the > differences.
Sometime around 1.5.0 I decided to merge only 'master' into MinGW and I didn't notice that there were some more or less important reversals in 'next'. (Note to myself: Pull 079f7cb27b into mingw before next update.)
-- Hannes