release notes/ change number discrepancy ? - Documentation/RelNotes/2.10.0.txt "merge b738396..."

release notes/ change number discrepancy ? - Documentation/RelNotes/2.10.0.txt "merge b738396..."

[Zenaan Harkness]

Am I missing something in the following:

looking at Documentation/RelNotes/2.10.0.txt I see the following release
note (~line 35):

 * "upload-pack" allows a custom "git pack-objects" replacement when
   responding to "fetch/clone" via the uploadpack.packObjectsHook.
   (merge b738396 jk/upload-pack-hook later to maint).


but when I run git show b738396 , I get the following:

commit b738396cfdcc276c0cde0c1a6462c5cc74ba7b76
Author: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date:   Thu Jul 14 15:58:59 2016 +0200

    mingw: fix regression in t1308-config-set


which seems to be completely unrelated. What am I missing please?

Thanks
Zenaan

Re: release notes/ change number discrepancy ? - Documentation/RelNotes/2.10.0.txt "merge b738396..."

[Junio C Hamano]

Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> writes:

> Am I missing something in the following:
>
> looking at Documentation/RelNotes/2.10.0.txt I see the following release
> note (~line 35):
>
>  * "upload-pack" allows a custom "git pack-objects" replacement when
>    responding to "fetch/clone" via the uploadpack.packObjectsHook.
>    (merge b738396 jk/upload-pack-hook later to maint).
>
>
> but when I run git show b738396 , I get the following:
>
> commit b738396cfdcc276c0cde0c1a6462c5cc74ba7b76
> Author: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> Date:   Thu Jul 14 15:58:59 2016 +0200
>
>     mingw: fix regression in t1308-config-set
>
> which seems to be completely unrelated. What am I missing please?

I think the commit is an "oops, we found a regression on a different
platform than the one used when developing the series after its
development completed, and here is a fix on top" commit that is
queued as the tip of a series.  You shouldn't be using "git show" on
it to look ONLY the tip of the series.

Let me show a better way to ask Git what you want to know, with the
excellent "git when-merged" script (google for it).

$ git when-merged b738396 master
refs/heads/master                      75676c8c8b6cbeec7ccb68d97c17db230d9f2659

We merged that commit to 'master' at 75676c8c8.  What does the merge
log say?

$ git show 75676c8c
commit 75676c8c8b6cbeec7ccb68d97c17db230d9f2659
Merge: 79ed43c28f b738396cfd
Author: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date:   Thu Jul 14 10:38:57 2016 -0700

    Merge branch 'jk/upload-pack-hook'

    A hot-fix to make a test working in mingw again.

    * jk/upload-pack-hook:
      mingw: fix regression in t1308-config-set

OK, so it was a hot-fix that consists of a single commit.  What did
we need to hot-fix?  A hot-fix is typically queued as a direct
follow-up to what is needed to be fixed.  When did we merge the
parent of the fix?

$ git when-merged b738396^ master
refs/heads/master                      1e4bf907890e094f1c1c8c5086387e7d5fdb0655

And that merge commit on 'master' shows us the series that needed to
be fixed up.

$ git show 1e4bf907890
commit 1e4bf907890e094f1c1c8c5086387e7d5fdb0655
Merge: 7a738b40f6 20b20a22f8
Author: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date:   Wed Jul 6 13:38:11 2016 -0700

    Merge branch 'jk/upload-pack-hook'

    "upload-pack" allows a custom "git pack-objects" replacement when
    responding to "fetch/clone" via the uploadpack.packObjectsHook.

    * jk/upload-pack-hook:
      upload-pack: provide a hook for running pack-objects
      t1308: do not get fooled by symbolic links to the source tree
      config: add a notion of "scope"
      config: return configset value for current_config_ functions
      config: set up config_source for command-line config
      git_config_parse_parameter: refactor cleanup code
      git_config_with_options: drop "found" counting

You learned from the above that the jk/upload-pack-hook topic was
developed as a 7-patch series, reviewed, tested and got merged to
'master' on Jul 6th.  Unfortunately a test in the series had a
portability issue that wasn't discovered while it was being reviewed
and tested, and a hot-fix was queued on top and merged to 'master'
about a week later.  If we wanted to merge the topic to the
maintenance track, we cannot just merge the original 7-patch series.
We need to merge the whole thing, including the 8th one that is the
hot-fix.