From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2012, #05; Mon, 13) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:09:53 -0500 Message-ID: <20120214220953.GC24802@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7v4nuuea7r.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120214214729.GA24711@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vmx8l5aw3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 14 23:10:04 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RxQZX-0005oX-9R for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:10:03 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932514Ab2BNWJ6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:09:58 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:35967 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932388Ab2BNWJ5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:09:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 12747 invoked by uid 107); 14 Feb 2012 22:17:08 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:17:08 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:09:53 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vmx8l5aw3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 02:05:16PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Yikes. I was planning to re-roll this, but got sidetracked discussing > > David's git-cola case. Besides a few minor tweaks in the documentation > > patch, the actual include patch is buggy, and accidentally turns on > > includes for "git config --list". > > Hmm, I thought t1305 covered "config --list", and ... oops, it makes sure > the output contains the inclusion. Yes. It should include it (and does correctly) when not using any per-file options, but does not correctly turn it off for the per-file case (because we bail to regular git_config instead of custom lookup code). > > Do you want to revert and re-do to make master pretty, or should I just > > build on top? > > Do you mean 'next'? I meant "revert from next and re-reroll, so that when the re-roll gets merged to master, the result there will look pretty". -Peff