Re: New semantic patches vs. in-flight topics [was: Re: [PATCH 00/19] Bring more repository handles into our code base]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I actually think this round does a far nicer job playing well with
> other topics than any earlier series.  The pain you are observing I
> think come primarily from my not making the best use of these
> patches.
>
> Steppng back a bit, I'd imagine in an ideal world where "make
> coccicheck" can be done instantaneously _and_ the spatch machinery
> is just as reliable as C compilers....
>
> What I _could_ do (and what I did do only for one round of pushing
> out 'pu') is to queue a coccinelle transformation at the tip of
> integration branches.  If "make coccicheck" ran in subsecond, I
> could even automate it in the script that is used to rebuild 'pu'
> every day, ...

Anyway, even though "make coccicheck" does not run in subsecond,
I've updated my machinery to rebuild the integration branches so
that I can optionally queue generated coccicheck patches, and what I
pushed out tonight has one at the tip of 'pu' and also another at
the tip of 'next'.  The latter seems to be passing all archs and
executing Windows run.

The tip of 'pu' has trouble with -Wunused on Apple around the
delta-islands series.


next: https://travis-ci.org/git/git/builds/444969406
pu:   https://travis-ci.org/git/git/builds/444969342





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux