Web lists-archives.com

ab/* topics (was: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2018, #01; Thu, 1))




On Thu, Nov 01 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> * ab/push-dwim-dst (2018-10-29) 9 commits
>  - SQUASH???
>  - push doc: document the DWYM behavior pushing to unqualified <dst>
>  - push: add DWYM support for "git push refs/remotes/...:<dst>"
>  - push: test that <src> doesn't DWYM if <dst> is unqualified
>  - push: add an advice on unqualified <dst> push
>  - push: move unqualified refname error into a function
>  - push: improve the error shown on unqualified <dst> push
>  - i18n: remote.c: mark error(...) messages for translation
>  - remote.c: add braces in anticipation of a follow-up change
>
>  "git push $there $src:$dst" rejects when $dst is not a fully
>  qualified refname and not clear what the end user meant.  The
>  codepath has been taught to give a clearer error message, and also
>  guess where the push should go by taking the type of the pushed
>  object into account (e.g. a tag object would want to go under
>  refs/tags/).
>
>  The last few steps are questionable.
>  cf. <87in1lkw54.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Will send an update to this soon.

> * ab/pack-tests-cleanup (2018-10-31) 3 commits
>  - index-pack tests: don't leave test repo dirty at end
>  - pack-objects tests: don't leave test .git corrupt at end
>  - pack-objects test: modernize style
>
>  A couple of tests used to leave the repository in a state that is
>  deliberately corrupt, which have been corrected.
>
>  Will merge to 'next'.

Thanks!

> * ab/reject-alias-loop (2018-10-19) 1 commit
>   (merged to 'next' on 2018-10-26 at bc213f1bef)
>  + alias: detect loops in mixed execution mode
>
>  Two (or more) aliases that mutually refer to each other can form an
>  infinite loop; we now attempt to notice and stop.
>
>  Discarded.
>  Reverted out of 'next'.
>  cf. <87sh0slvxm.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

*nod* will try to find time to work on this soon, but treating it as
non-urgent.

Could you please pick up
https://public-inbox.org/git/20181024114725.3927-1-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ ?
It seems to have fallen between the cracks and addressed the feedback on
v1, and looks good to me (and nobody's objected so far...).