Web lists-archives.com

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2017, #01; Wed, 5)




> [Graduated to "master"]
>
> * bw/repo-object (2017-06-23) 21 commits
...
>
>  Introduce a "repository" object to eventually make it easier to
>  work in multiple repositories (the primary focus is to work with
>  the superproject and its submodules) in a single process.

It's pretty rad to see this advancing to master.
FYI: I started working on teaching the object store how to work
with repository objects. This would allow us to get rid of hacks in
submodule.c: namely add_submodule_odb, which adds submodule
objects to the (main) object store for processing. Ideally we want
to free the objects of a submodule once we are done with a submodule.
(or integrate it into our try_to_free_routine)

> * sb/hashmap-cleanup (2017-07-05) 10 commits
...
>  Will wait for feedback, then merge to and cook in 'next'.

Thanks.

> * sb/pull-rebase-submodule (2017-06-27) 4 commits
>  - builtin/fetch cleanup: always set default value for submodule recursing
>  - pull: optionally rebase submodules (remote submodule changes only)
>  - builtin/fetch: parse recurse-submodules-default at default options parsing
>  - builtin/fetch: factor submodule recurse parsing out to submodule config
>
>  "git pull --rebase --recurse-submodules" learns to rebase the
>  branch in the submodules to an updated base.

Speaking of submodules, It's not just features, but I also send bug fixes. ;)
https://public-inbox.org/git/20170630003851.17288-1-sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx/
(That patch is not related to this series, except for working in the submodule
area, but I consider that patch more important than e.g. this series.)

> * sb/submodule-doc (2017-06-22) 1 commit
>  - submodules: overhaul documentation
>
>  Doc update.
>
>  What's the status of this thing?

There was some review on the list (mostly from Brandon and Jonathan T.),
but I felt like it was bikeshedding, as there is no black/white correctness
with words. (Same for code, but for code it is easier to come to a
consensus at least.)

So I had a couple of internal rounds with them on a Google doc, hence
I assume they agree on this patch being ok as-is.  But it has been a while
I can reread it myself to check. But I guess most valuable input
would come from others.

> * sb/diff-color-move (2017-06-30) 26 commits
...
>  Will merge to 'next'.

cool. Let's see how a larger audience reacts to this one. Maybe there
is more input for a good heuristic.

Thanks,
Stefan