From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E4DD2BAF0 for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 05:33:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716269605; cv=none; b=ews7AbDneNfqtgImBWy0B/y6Ydc5Ao9hhsGO7wEhmQIYM1jKci18rb/2apnTCw/d10xhHQfDEy0EZTXnOjOxUxTfAldTxo90k1DRmQNGAXhk08/0hqe/iQrPA1McsqHPICauc7mGHw/W1gO4t4l49tkuNAmZlFTbe/w0X9s3LR0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716269605; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lQDuj/XD+kFYEIO/caMB4eeYle0kCdtNPfpYKeSfYRk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=nLdv/Kbrm9P95UyhORJyK8VYsvLYNoE5BerWtlG1BWwNK/6xzouQ1IRq/MOT6uyTy3B4DGOkt12e/NOtYf9lTba74MpilcQGSX1DMjYz3NE4tSjA0rDvjmfdU5QfFxmcjtx2TXciPUalNFeRB4vpVlBNjo9RTABtntYHSUrNBXU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=coBRj7JH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="coBRj7JH" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3872C23A; Tue, 21 May 2024 01:33:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=lQDuj/XD+kFYEIO/caMB4eeYle0kCdtNPfpYKe SfYRk=; b=coBRj7JHCxaZQN2ptxkAO0XXryVhJkWHtHThEYMikVYTyypXtnkYE7 owy5WTllF0ZGgchSFn1pPrabQeFiVBvKMDrRU2noykyeT2u3L3Qn8kKlRdlpeCEV S6Ow1M1EdwbG8wjlPkBJudmw0qvHj2C+IZsOP3Anp4vKCqIpLmSV0= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850A42C239; Tue, 21 May 2024 01:33:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.173.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E6B92C238; Tue, 21 May 2024 01:33:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "brian m. carlson" , Jeff King , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Various fixes for v2.45.1 and friends In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 20 May 2024 16:56:44 -0700") References: Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 22:33:19 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A2545F96-1733-11EF-805D-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Junio C Hamano writes: > In any case, I just compared the result of applying these patches to > v2.39.4 with the result of reverting the following out of v2.39.4: > > 584de0b4 (Add a helper function to compare file contents, 2024-03-30) > 8db1e874 (clone: prevent hooks from running during a clone, 2024-03-28) > 20f3588e (core.hooksPath: add some protection while cloning, 2024-03-30) > > and the differences was exactly as I expected. A Makefile fix and a > new test added to t1350 are the extra in the series, but otherwise > the patches are essentially reversion of these three steps. Very > nicely done. > > Thanks for a quick turnaround. Will take further look. I completed merge-up exercise and compared the result with your "tentative" cascade from maint-2.39 to maint-2.45 tracks. The differences came from pointed cherry-picks (like 'ci: avoid bare "gcc" for osx-gcc job') looked minimal and sensible. I wonder what the best way to do a public review of this kind of history, though. $ git log --oneline --graph maint-2.45..dscho/tentative/maint-2.45 * aeddcb0275 Git 2.45.2 * 65f0d62523 Sync with 2.44.2 * 9953011fcd Git 2.44.2 * f78818b645 Sync with 2.43.5 * 0aeca2f80b Git 2.43.5 * 0cc3782b1a Sync with 2.42.3 * 33efa2ad1a Git 2.42.3 * 30195eb2b6 Sync with 2.41.2 * 5215e4e368 Git 2.41.2 * 9d6788fd73 Sync with 2.40.3 * 4bf5d57da6 Git 2.40.3 * 9f7a956be5 Sync with 2.39.5 * b9a96c4e5d Git 2.39.5 All of the above (and the one below) are merging up, resolving conflicts, and updating release notes and GIT-VERSION-GEN. * b674c6f66c Merge branch 'js/fix-v2.39.4-regressions' into maint-2.39 |\ | * 5c576e889d Revert "Add a helper function to compare file contents" | * 0044a35567 clone: drop the protections where hooks aren't run | * cd14042b06 tests: verify that `clone -c core.hooksPath=/dev/null` works again | * 57db89a149 Revert "core.hooksPath: add some protection while cloning" | * 961dfc35f4 init: use the correct path of the templates directory again | * d4a003bf2c hook: plug a new memory leak The above 6 patches all appeared on the list in this "v3" thread. * 883ca51e0a Merge branch 'jk/ci-macos-gcc13-fix' into 'maint-2.39' This is a merge of the following three patches to maint-2.39 * d4543be3f2 ci: stop installing "gcc-13" for osx-gcc * 2aef8020d2 ci: avoid bare "gcc" for osx-gcc job * f3e5bdfebc ci: drop mention of BREW_INSTALL_PACKAGES variable These three patches were taken from jk/ci-macos-gcc13-fix that was forked from v2.45.0 and rebased them on top of v2.39.4. The bottom one seems to have been adjusted for the older contexts, which during subsequent merging-up has been adjusted back again for the more recent contexts (e.g., we used to use $HOME/bin but use $P4_PATH for Perforce these days, and such differences in the base version appear in the context for "BREW_INSTALL_PACKAGES" change). So, in short, I didn't see anything unexpected to see in these branches. The "ci" fixes were already reviewed elsewhere (even though there are slight deviations), so if people are OK with the 6 patches in this thread, I would say we are good to go. Thanks.