Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #01; Wed, 10)
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:18:41 +0100
- From: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #01; Wed, 10)
On 10/10, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * ps/stash-in-c (2018-08-31) 20 commits
> - stash: replace all `write-tree` child processes with API calls
> - stash: optimize `get_untracked_files()` and `check_changes()`
> - stash: convert `stash--helper.c` into `stash.c`
> - stash: convert save to builtin
> - stash: make push -q quiet
> - stash: convert push to builtin
> - stash: convert create to builtin
> - stash: convert store to builtin
> - stash: mention options in `show` synopsis
> - stash: convert show to builtin
> - stash: convert list to builtin
> - stash: convert pop to builtin
> - stash: convert branch to builtin
> - stash: convert drop and clear to builtin
> - stash: convert apply to builtin
> - stash: add tests for `git stash show` config
> - stash: rename test cases to be more descriptive
> - stash: update test cases conform to coding guidelines
> - stash: improve option parsing test coverage
> - sha1-name.c: add `get_oidf()` which acts like `get_oid()`
> "git stash" rewritten in C.
> Undecided. This also has been part of my personal build. I do not
> offhand recall if this also had the same exposure to the end users
> as "rebase" and "rebase -i". I am tempted to merge this to 'next'
There was a v9 of this series [*1*], which hasn't been picked up yet.
Was that intentional, or an oversight?
I left some comments on that iteration. Some were just style nits,
but I think at least [*2*] should be addressed before we merge this
down to master, not sure if any of my other comments apply to v8 as
well. I'm happy to send fixup patches, or a patches on top of
this series for that and my other comments, should they apply to v8,
or wait for Paul-Sebastian to send a re-roll. What do you prefer?