On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:38 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. That is pretty exciting! Looking at the commit in next, you also included the suggestion from [1] to use a postincrement instead of a preincrement and I got excited to see how we express such a thing in coccinelle, but it turns out that it slipped in unrelated to the coccinelle patches. How would we go from here? It is not obvious to me how such changes would be integrated, as regenerating them on top of pu will not help getting these changes merged down, and applying the semantic patch on next (once sb/more-repo-in-api lands in next) would created the merge conflicts for all topics that are merged to next after that series. [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqin1wyxvz.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
