Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2010, #04; Wed, 18)

From: Jonathan Nieder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:02:37 -0500

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> * ab/compat-regex (2010-08-17) 5 commits
>  - autoconf: don't use platform regex if it lacks REG_STARTEND
>  - t/t7008-grep-binary.sh: un-TODO a test that needs REG_STARTEND
>  - Change regerror() declaration from K&R style to ANSI C (C89)
>  - compat/regex: get the gawk regex engine to compile within git
>  - compat/regex: use the regex engine from gawk for compat

As Hannes noticed, the tip commit is bogus and the configure
test gives the wrong result on platforms with missing or inferior
regex.  Sorry about that.  Replacement is at $gmane/153782.

> * jn/update-contrib-example-merge (2010-08-17) 25 commits
[...]
> A series like this may update scripted Porcelains with
> recent new features, but the result will never be as solidly battle tested
> implementations (admittedly with only subset of features and without later
> fixes) like we had there so far.

I was similarly nervous about that.  But as you say, it is always possible
to search through history for the older version.

Administrivia:

 - patch 1 (do not mistake ancestor of tag for branch) is a separate fix.
   It probably should have been sent separately.

 - patch 9-11 (merge-base --octopus, merge-base --independent, and especially
   fmt-merge-msg -m) which expose library functions to scripts might be
   independently useful.

 - patch 24 (merge script: learn --[no-]rerere-autoupdate) requires a
   working rerere --rerere-autoupdate, which means the patch for commit
   672d1b78 (rerere: migrate to parse-options API, 2010-08-05).  I can
   make a more targetted fix if that would be helpful for testing.

> * jn/commit-no-change-wo-status (2010-08-11) 10 commits
[...]
> There seemed to be some doubts on removal of the "no changes" line?

I'm happy to drop this series for now; the resulting output is just
not very good.

> * jn/paginate-fix (2010-08-16) 14 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2010-08-18 at bb04a13)

I am happy to see this get more exposure.  Thanks.

> There were heavy merge conflicts in t4200; I tried to be careful when
> merging this, but extra sets of eyeballs from parties involved (Jonathan
> and Szeder) would always be a good idea.

Looks good (and agrees with what I got from manually applying Szeder's
patch on top of the topic).