Antoine Pelisse writes:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> * rh/remote-hg-bzr-updates (2013-11-18) 9 commits
>> (merged to 'next' on 2013-11-20 at a36f3c4)
>> + remote-bzr, remote-hg: fix email address regular expression
>> + test-hg.sh: help user correlate verbose o
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * rh/remote-hg-bzr-updates (2013-11-18) 9 commits
> (merged to 'next' on 2013-11-20 at a36f3c4)
> + remote-bzr, remote-hg: fix email address regular expression
> + test-hg.sh: help user correlate verbose output with email test
> + test-
Jeff King writes:
> Re-rolling such a big chunk of code _is_ a pain for both me and for
> reviewers, so I wouldn't mind switching to "fixes on top" instead of
> re-rolling at some point. But we can do another round or two of re-roll
> first.
No, actually I think the plan that you sketched in the
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 06:58:55PM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote:
> > I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on the name (it
> > really does look like it is a negation, and the only caller is
> > ewah_not).
>
> Hmm, so it really was that one unlucky thing :-)
I don't promise there is onl
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:05:25PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > If this could make it to `next` some time next week, that would work
> > out great for us, because we may start considering using `next` as a
> > partial or full deployment on our production machines
>
> I do not think potentiall
Vicent Marti writes:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on the name (it
>> really does look like it is a negation, and the only caller is
>> ewah_not).
>
> Yes, the name was ported straight from the original library and kept
Vicent Martà writes:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> We are running a slightly older version of the patchset, because we're
> still on 1.8.4 and the current reroll doesn't apply cleanly there.
>
> If this could make it to `next` some time next week, that would work
>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Do we want to try this in 'next' post-1.8.5, or should I try to prod an
>> area expert like Shawn into doing another round of review?
>
> Yes ;-).
>
> I recall starting to read the series over and then got sidetracked
> in the middle and ne
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> Granted, the way I verified this was checking whether you renamed
>> rlw_xor_run_bit() to something more fitting, so perhaps you just forgot
>> that one thing but did all the rest.
>
> I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on the n
Jeff King writes:
> Looks like you picked up my latest re-roll with Ramsay's fix on top.
> There wasn't a lot of review on this past round (I'm not surprised; it's
> a dauntingly large chunk to review). I outlined a few possible open
> issues in the cover letter, but I'd be happy to build those
Jeff King writes:
>> Hmm, maybe I missed something, but AFAICS you (or Vicent) never acted on
>> or responded to my June reviews in this thread:
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/228918
[...]
>> Granted, the way I verified this was checking whether you renamed
>> rlw
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 05:52:37PM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote:
> > Looks like you picked up my latest re-roll with Ramsay's fix on top.
> > There wasn't a lot of review on this past round (I'm not surprised; it's
> > a dauntingly large chunk to review). I outlined a few possible open
> > issues in
Jeff King writes:
>> * jk/pack-bitmap (2013-11-18) 22 commits
[...]
>> Borrows the bitmap index into packfiles from JGit to speed up
>> enumeration of objects involved in a commit range without having to
>> fully traverse the history.
>
> Looks like you picked up my latest re-roll with Ramsay'
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:19:43PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * np/pack-v4 (2013-09-18) 90 commits
> . packv4-parse.c: add tree offset caching
> . t1050: replace one instance of show-index with verify-pack
> . index-pack, pack-objects: allow creating .idx v2 with .pack v4
> . unpack-object
Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
'-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
'+' are in 'next'.
Hopefully 1.8.5-rc3 that was tagged on Wednesday will be the final
release candidate for this cycle.
You can find the changes described here in
15 matches
Mail list logo
