Max Horn <max@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> On 11 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> ... >> * "branch --delete" has "branch -d" but "push --delete" does not. > > This states a problem, but not whether (and how) it was resolved? Thanks; how about * "push" learned that its "--delete" option can be shortened to "-d", just like "branch --delete" and "branch -d" are the same thing. >> * Across the transition at around Git version 2.0, the user used to >> get a pretty loud warning when running "git push" without setting >> push.default configuration variable. We no longer warn, given that >> the transition is over long time ago. > > That last sentence sounds weird... perhaps "the transition was > completed a long time ago" ? Or "the transition ended a long time > ago" ? * ... We no longer warn because the transition was completed a long time ago. >> * A slight update to the Makefile to mark "phoney" targets >> as such correctly. > > phoney -> phony? Thanks for sharp eyes. >> * Some calls to strcpy(3) triggers a false warning from static >> analysers that are less intelligent than humans, and reducing the >> number of these false hits helps us notice real issues. A few >> calls to strcpy(3) in test-path-utils that are already safe has >> been rewritten to avoid false wanings. >> >> * Some calls to strcpy(3) triggers a false warning from static >> analysers that are less intelligent than humans, and reducing the >> number of these false hits helps us notice real issues. A few >> calls to strcpy(3) in "git rerere" that are already safe has been >> rewritten to avoid false wanings. > > The above two messages are very similar, only the end differs a bit. That's deliberate as they are two different fixes to a similar problems. We can just omit the names of the components to make them into one entry if we really wanted to. >> * Asking gitweb for a nonexistent commit left a warning in the server >> log. >> >> Somebody may want to follow this up with an additional test, perhaps? >> IIRC, we do test that no Perl warnings are given to the server log, >> so this should have been caught if our test coverage were good. > > That last paragraph seems odd for a changelog? I do not think it is wrong to leave a reminder to ourselves that there are yet more work need to be done. >> * The underlying machinery used by "ls-files -o" and other commands >> have been taught not to create empty submodule ref cache for a > > have -> has (the machinery is singular) Again, thanks for sharp eyes. -- 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