From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2013, #06; Tue, 27)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:51:25 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130827205125.GA23783@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsixvaqh5.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:22:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * jk/config-int-range-check (2013-08-21) 2 commits
> (merged to 'next' on 2013-08-22 at 465efb3)
> + teach git-config to output large integers
> + config: properly range-check integer values
>
> Originally merged to 'next' on 2013-08-22
>
> "git config --int section.var 3g" should somehow diagnose that the
> number does not fit in "int" (on 32-bit platforms anyway) but it
> did not.
>
> Will cook in 'next'.
I think Jonathan had some concerns about the test in the first one, and
there was an open question in the second of whether we wanted to add
something like --ulong, call it something more agnostic like
--file-size, or simply teach --int to use 64-bit integers everywhere for
simplicity.
Thoughts?
> * jk/mailmap-incomplete-line (2013-08-25) 2 commits
> - mailmap: avoid allocation when reading from blob
> - mailmap: handle mailmap blobs without trailing newlines
>
> Will merge to 'next'.
Did you want me to squash these? The second one more or less eradicates
the changes made to the first one. I mainly did them separately in case
we were going to only do the first half on maint.
> * jk/write-broken-index-with-nul-sha1 (2013-08-26) 1 commit
> - write_index: optionally allow broken null sha1s
>
> Am I waiting for another reroll?
Yep, just sent v3.
> [Stalled]
> [...]
> * jk/list-objects-sans-blobs (2013-06-06) 4 commits
> . archive: ignore blob objects when checking reachability
> . list-objects: optimize "revs->blob_objects = 0" case
> . upload-archive: restrict remote objects with reachability check
> . clear parsed flag when we free tree buffers
>
> Attempt to allow "archive --remote=$there $arbitrary_sha1" while
> keeping the reachability safety.
>
> Seems to break some tests in a trivial and obvious way.
You can probably discard this one (though you may want to take the
bottom as a separate cleanup). I think we decided that the right
strategy is to do the ":" split as we do now, but then do the normal
commit-level reachability check on the left-hand side. I just haven't
gotten around to writing the code yet.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-27 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-27 19:22 What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2013, #06; Tue, 27) Junio C Hamano
2013-08-27 20:51 ` Jeff King [this message]
2013-08-27 21:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-08-27 21:48 ` Jeff King
2013-08-27 22:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-08-28 6:39 ` Johannes Sixt
2013-08-27 21:25 ` Antoine Pelisse
2013-08-27 22:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-08-27 21:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-08-28 0:05 ` Kacper Kornet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130827205125.GA23783@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).