On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Adam Spiers <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> * as/check-ignore (2013-01-10) 12 commits >>> (merged to 'next' on 2013-01-14 at 9df2afc) >>> + t0008: avoid brace expansion >>> + add git-check-ignore sub-command >>> + setup.c: document get_pathspec() >>> + add.c: extract new die_if_path_beyond_symlink() for reuse >>> + add.c: extract check_path_for_gitlink() from treat_gitlinks() for reuse >>> + pathspec.c: rename newly public functions for clarity >>> + add.c: move pathspec matchers into new pathspec.c for reuse >>> + add.c: remove unused argument from validate_pathspec() >>> + dir.c: improve docs for match_pathspec() and match_pathspec_depth() >>> + dir.c: provide clear_directory() for reclaiming dir_struct memory >>> + dir.c: keep track of where patterns came from >>> + dir.c: use a single struct exclude_list per source of excludes >>> >>> Add a new command "git check-ignore" for debugging .gitignore >>> files. >> >> The above is v4 plus the "t0008: avoid brace expansion" fix. v4 is >> slightly outdated and not quite the right version to merge to 'next'. > > Sigh. > > The "What's cooking" is a report of what _has_ already happened. I > would have appreciated if you said the above _before_ this happened. I did, 8 days ago in the link which you just trimmed from your reply: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/212184/focus=212856 The additional issues with t0008 were discovered after I posted v4, as reflected in last Wednesday's "What's cooking" (#04): "The test it adds seems to break under dash. Expecting a reroll or fixup." I assumed that for brevity you had deliberately omitted mentioning the outstanding dir.exclude_list_group[EXC_CMDL].el[0] encapsulation issue linked above, so I thought we were aligned at this point. However I see now that you changed the status to an intention to merge this to 'next' in last Friday's "What's cooking" (#05). That gave me a window of under 72 hours in which to reiterate the need for a final re-roll. Unfortunately with other commitments and illness over the weekend, I didn't catch this in time. However, the damage is very small: >> I'll post a v5 re-roll as per: > > Now the series is in 'next', it is too late to _replace_ it X-<. > Could you instead make an incremental updates on top? That way, we > do not have to re-review the whole thing; we only need to review the > changes relative to the old one, making sure that the fixes in the > updates are better than the v4 version. Sure, that's easy to do. It'll be a single small patch very similar to this one: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/212852 minus the superfluous printf() debug statements. I'll do that now. Thanks, Adam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html