On 10/10, Junio C Hamano wrote: > * ps/stash-in-c (2018-08-31) 20 commits > - stash: replace all `write-tree` child processes with API calls > - stash: optimize `get_untracked_files()` and `check_changes()` > - stash: convert `stash--helper.c` into `stash.c` > - stash: convert save to builtin > - stash: make push -q quiet > - stash: convert push to builtin > - stash: convert create to builtin > - stash: convert store to builtin > - stash: mention options in `show` synopsis > - stash: convert show to builtin > - stash: convert list to builtin > - stash: convert pop to builtin > - stash: convert branch to builtin > - stash: convert drop and clear to builtin > - stash: convert apply to builtin > - stash: add tests for `git stash show` config > - stash: rename test cases to be more descriptive > - stash: update test cases conform to coding guidelines > - stash: improve option parsing test coverage > - sha1-name.c: add `get_oidf()` which acts like `get_oid()` > > "git stash" rewritten in C. > > Undecided. This also has been part of my personal build. I do not > offhand recall if this also had the same exposure to the end users > as "rebase" and "rebase -i". I am tempted to merge this to 'next' > soonish. > > Opinions? There was a v9 of this series [*1*], which hasn't been picked up yet. Was that intentional, or an oversight? I left some comments on that iteration. Some were just style nits, but I think at least [*2*] should be addressed before we merge this down to master, not sure if any of my other comments apply to v8 as well. I'm happy to send fixup patches, or a patches on top of this series for that and my other comments, should they apply to v8, or wait for Paul-Sebastian to send a re-roll. What do you prefer? [*1*]: <cover.1537913094.git.ungureanupaulsebastian@xxxxxxxxx> [*2*]: <20180930174848.GE2253@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
