On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:10:59AM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: > On 28/06/18 23:03, Jeff King wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 07:53:27PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: > [snip] > > Yes, it can go in quickly. But I'd prefer not to keep it in the long > > term if it's literally doing nothing. > > Hmm, I don't think you can say its doing nothing! > > "Yeah, this solution seems sensible. Given that we would > never report any error for that blob, there is no point > in even looking at it." > > ... is no less true, with or without additional patches! ;-) True that we don't even bother doing the parsing with your patch. But I think I talked myself out of that part being a significant savings elsewhere. I guess it would be OK to leave it in. It just feels like it would be vestigial after the rest of the patches. > > I have some patches which I think solve your problem. They apply on > > v2.18.0, but not on v2.17.1 (because they rely on Dscho's increased > > passing of config_options in v2.18). Is that good enough? > > Heh, I was also writing patches to address this tonight (but > I was also watching the football, so I was somewhat behind you). > My patches were not too dissimilar to yours, except I was aiming > to allow even do_config_from_file() etc., to suppress errors. I think this should work via do_config_from_file(). The thing it really misses is that git_config_with_options() will not respect it, but the handling of options there is already a bug (well, I don't think there's anything triggerable either before or after my patches, but it feels like a bug waiting to happen). > Your patches were cleaner and more focused than mine. (Instead of > turning die_on_error into an enum, I added an additional 'quiet' > flag. When pushing the stack (eg. for include files), I had to > copy the quiet flag from the parent struct, etc, ... ;-) ). Yes, I think that's what you have to do pre-v2.18, where we don't pass the options struct around. > > Yes, it would include any syntax error. I also have a slight worry about > > that, but nobody seems to have screamed _yet_. :) > > Hmm, I don't think we can ignore this. :( I'm not sure. This has been running on every push to GitHub for the past 6 weeks, and this is the first report. It's hard to say what that means, and technically speaking of course this _is_ a regression. There's a nearby thread of interest, too, which I cc'd you on: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180703070650.b3drk5a6kb4k4tnp@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Here are the patches I came up with. > > Yes, I applied these locally and tested them. All OK here. > > So, FWIW, Ack! > > [I still think my original patch, with the 'to_be_skipped' > function name changed to 'object_on_skiplist', should be > the first patch of the series!] Thanks. If we're going to do any loosening, I think we may want to address that _first_, so it can go directly on top of the patches in v2.17.1 (because it's a bigger issue than the stray message, IMHO). -Peff
