Re: bug in en/header-split-cache-h-part-3, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2023, #05; Tue, 20)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> Yeah. I guess the real build problem is actually in the merge of split-2
> (it conflicted with a simultaneous topic, hence the fix coming in the
> merge). So another option to address that here would be to amend the
> 4bd872e0ed (Merge branch 'en/header-split-cache-h-part-2' into
> en/header-split-cache-h-part-3, 2023-05-08) to include that fixup.
>
> As for the others, I'd consider:
>
>   1. (optional) Drop the #ifndef at the very start of the series, before
>      we touch anything, with the rationale that it is not doing anything
>      and masks errors. I don't _think_ this can ever backfire, because
>      we unconditionally set DEFAULT_GIT_TEMPLATE_DIR (unlike some other
>      things like DEFAULT_PAGER, where the Makefile might leave it
>      unset). But we can also leave this out, or do it as a separate
>      topic, if we want to minimize changes / risk of screwing something
>      up.
>
>   2. Squash the Makefile fix into the "adopt shared init-db" patch
>      (currently 0d652b238).
>
> And that would leave the result fully bisectable. But if we prefer to
> keep the history closer to reality, I can prepare the Makefile thing as
> a patch on top.

I've done the messiest, I guess ;-)

 * revert merge of the part-3 topic and Dscho's cmake fix out of 'next'.

 * rebase part-3 on top of the more recent 'master'.

 * squash in the two hunks (including setup.c change) from you into
   the "setup: adopt shared init-db & clone code" step.

 * squash in Dscho's cmake fix into "cache.h: remove this
   no-longer-used header" step.

The result is not in 'next' yet until I hear something from those
who have been involved in the topic, including Elijah and Dscho.

Thanks.