From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2010, #01; Tue, 9) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:53:27 +0100 Message-ID: <201011120053.29279.jnareb@gmail.com> References: <7vbp5ymfyo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vsjz7hj3s.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 12 00:53:44 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 1PGgxb-0003y3-Im for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:53:43 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755175Ab0KKXxj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:53:39 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:33043 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752518Ab0KKXxh (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:53:37 -0500 Received: by fxm16 with SMTP id 16so1866280fxm.19 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:53:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=ThIMllAxzbl5TKXHkWYSwj+Jm7IENxcTWv+TygoYQqk=; b=MB/KJ2yQ8UHpI0J6NS+Cwy4NW5FnFceOeIMIVqfR7XBWvyy7KdjIhL1U8W+adYHJwj Sl/B4a/IJY8R+i8v7SywqcQhhGzlqvZCQmaobCTUaFqQ+ONJTJmfDYZLx7rREItVtu8p 0k4iQjNlkwL2ywOl7eZ5MbMpHUhabNCN7dwYk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:message-id; b=ClGCcvZBpHUUsFG/Q4jpT5yoYjDNoe4/G0YUf91So0asq0gsUQDX7d4FgW9ppKIQe6 wjOrK5tyzxyro6LlI0kI7xCMI+NMEKumYITYmkKUVxMHtEXXopM9yVlzFk5dshiP1DSi QXbvK3FdCGOAIeoFH0OzXVmdx1LGy6cA4w6Ts= Received: by 10.223.122.201 with SMTP id m9mr774609far.79.1289519616626; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:53:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.13] (abvw231.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.8.220.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm1170054fal.22.2010.11.11.15.53.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:53:35 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 In-Reply-To: <7vsjz7hj3s.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jakub Narebski writes: >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> ... >>> * jh/gitweb-caching (2010-11-01) 4 commits >>> - gitweb: Minimal testing of gitweb caching >>> - gitweb: File based caching layer (from git.kernel.org) >>> - gitweb: add output buffering and associated functions >>> - gitweb: Prepare for splitting gitweb >>> (this branch uses jn/gitweb-test.) >> >>> * jn/gitweb-test (2010-09-26) 4 commits >>> (merged to 'next' on 2010-11-05 at 90b3adf) >>> + gitweb/Makefile: Include gitweb/config.mak >>> + gitweb/Makefile: Add 'test' and 'test-installed' targets >>> + t/gitweb-lib.sh: Add support for GITWEB_TEST_INSTALLED >>> + gitweb: Move call to evaluate_git_version after evaluate_gitweb_config >>> (this branch is used by jh/gitweb-caching.) >> >> These two branches have simple to resolve but non-trivial conflict. >> Should I rebase 'jh/gitweb-caching' on top of 'jn/gitweb-test' then, >> resolving this conflict? > > In general, when a conflict between topic A and B is simple to resolve > (and I have the correct resolution already in 'pu'), I'd rather prefer to > keep topic A independent of topic B than rebasing topic A on top of topic > B, unless topic A is far from ready and topic B is truly ready and about > to graduate, so that we can leave a door open for A to graduate before B > does (or vice versa). > > In this case, I think it is overdue (iow, sorry I've been slow) for the > gitweb-test topic to graduate, so the separation does not really matter. I have send version of 'gitweb: Prepare for splitting gitweb' that applies cleanly on top of "gitweb/Makefile: Add 'test' and 'test-installed' targets" as "[PATCHv7.1b 1/4] gitweb: Prepare for splitting gitweb" http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/160492 But you probably don't have this in 'pu'. Resolving of conflict is straighforward, but non-trivial, and consist of two parts: * textual conflict caused by adding extra stuff in place where context is - simple to resolve * adding support for testing installed version of modules, in the future if/when we add tests of individual modules (I use this in my rewrite of gitweb caching) - non-trivial >> BTW. this would allow me to improve 'gitweb: Minimal testing of gitweb >> caching'. > > Then I probably should leave gitweb-caching out of 'next' when gitweb-test > graduates to master so that you can refresh the caching series. Thanks > for a heads-up. In short: code responsible for turning caching on was duplicated in t9500 and t9502 (will be moved to t/gitweb-lib.sh), and code path with die_error (e.g. 404 not found case) was not tested. I'll try to send re-roll (rebased and improved) tomorrow (on Friday). -- Jakub Narebski Poland