Hi Junio, On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > >> Thanks for your work on this! I have read through the range-diff and > > >> the new patch of this last round, and this addresses all the comments > > >> I had on v10 (and some more :)). I consider it > > >> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > One thing that bothers me is that this seems to have been rebased on > > > 'master', but as long as we are rebasing, the updated series must > > > also take into account of the sd/stash-wo-user-name topic, i.e. if > > > we are rebasing it, it should be rebased on top of the result of > > > > > > git checkout -B ps/rebase-in-c master > > > git merge --no-ff sd/stash-wo-user-name > > > > > > I think. > > > > https://travis-ci.org/git/git/builds/459619672 would show that this > > C reimplementation now regresses from the scripted version due to > > lack of such rebasing (i.e. porting a correction from scripted one). > > Oh, you know, at first I *mis-read* your mail to mean "don't you rebase > all the time!", but in this case (in contrast to earlier statements about > rebasing between iterations of patch series), you *do* want Paul to > rebase. > > Let me see what I can come up with in my `git-stash` branch on > https://github.com/dscho/git There. I force-pushed an update that is based on sd/stash-wo-user-name and adds a `prepare_fallback_ident(name, email)` to `ident.c` for use in the built-in stash: https://github.com/dscho/git/commit/d37ce623fbd32e4345c701dea822e56de1a5417f It passes t3903 in a little over a minute with GIT_TEST_STASH_USE_BUILTIN=true and in a little less than seven minutes with GIT_TEST_STASH_USE_BUILTIN=false. Ciao, Dscho
