From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: nd/setup Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 20:13:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20100409001322.GB23501@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <7v6342ahx9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100408073825.GA15153@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20100408214233.GA32441@progeny.tock> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 09 02:13:52 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O01r5-0005Mv-Lt for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:13:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933944Ab0DIANq convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 20:13:46 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:48238 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933796Ab0DIANp (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 20:13:45 -0400 Received: (qmail 28082 invoked by uid 107); 9 Apr 2010 00:13:43 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:13:43 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:13:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100408214233.GA32441@progeny.tock> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:42:33PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> * nd/setup (2010-04-05) 43 commits > [...] > > Probably one or both > > of us should look at it before applying it to next, but assuming it > > passes a basic sanity check, I think the best thing will be to get = it in > > 'next' early so we can shake out any bugs during the next cycle. >=20 > I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s anywhere near master material yet. To clarify, I don't think that either. But sitting in pu, nobody is eve= n running it. This seems to me like the sort of topic where there will be a lot of unintended fallouts. Besides review, the best way to find them is to get people running it, and 'next' is the most bleeding-edge we have. > when run outside any repository. Probably the checker should be > configured by an environment variable that indicates where to print > its messages and whether to bail out when a problem is detected (for > tests). Yeah, that sounds reasonable, especially if merging this to 'next' woul= d make git unusable. We want to shake out bugs, not punish people running next. :) But I haven't even really looked at the topic in detail yet. > Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, Not at all. This is exactly the sort of in-depth review that is very helpful. Thanks. -Peff