Web lists-archives.com

Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2017, #04; Fri, 12)

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> * ab/grep-preparatory-cleanup (2017-05-12) 15 commits
>>>  - grep: add tests to fix blind spots with \0 patterns
>>>  - grep: prepare for testing binary regexes containing rx metacharacters
>>>  - SQUASH???
>>>  - grep: add a test helper function for less verbose -f \0 tests
>>>  - grep: add tests for grep pattern types being passed to submodules
>>>  - grep: amend submodule recursion test for regex engine testing
>>>  - grep: add tests for --threads=N and grep.threads
>>>  - SQUASH???
>>>  - grep: change non-ASCII -i test to stop using --debug
>>>  - grep: add a test for backreferences in PCRE patterns
>>>  - grep: add a test asserting that --perl-regexp dies when !PCRE
>>>  - log: add exhaustive tests for pattern style options & config
>>>  - test-lib: rename the LIBPCRE prerequisite to PCRE
>>>  - grep & rev-list doc: stop promising libpcre for --perl-regexp
>>>  - Makefile & configure: reword inaccurate comment about PCRE
>>>  (what is queued here is only the early part of a larger series)
>> What's the reason for only queuing it up to this point?
> No particular reason other than there is only so many hours in a day
> and running out of time reading and queuing patches.

Makes sense, just wondering if I should send the full thing as a v2 or
split it up. I'll just send the full thing.

>>> * ab/compat-regex-update (2017-05-12) 3 commits
>>>  - DONTMERGE compat/regex: make it compile with -Werror=int-to-pointer-cast
>>>  - compat/regex: update the gawk regex engine from upstream
>>>  - compat/regex: add a README with a maintenance guide
>>>  Update compat/regex we borrowed from gawk.  It seems that some
>>>  customizations we made to the older one were dropped by mistake.
>> Do you prefer that I pick up JS's "compat/regex: fix compilation on
>> Windows" patch & re-send, or for you to add that on top after that
>> discussion is resolved?
> The tip one is what I did only to see if that is the only reason why
> Windows build is failing, without knowing Dscho did essentially the
> same one hours before.  I'd prefer to drop it myself, and ask you
> and Dscho to work the solution out, as I am farther than Dscho to
> the machinery that can be used to validate the fix ;-)

*Nod* will re-submit a version that works & incorporates that fix.