On Tue, Apr 16 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > * jc/gettext-test-fix (2019-04-15) 1 commit > - gettext tests: export the restored GIT_TEST_GETTEXT_POISON > > The GETTEXT_POISON test option has been quite broken ever since it > was made runtime-tunable, which has been fixed. > > Will merge to 'next'. LGTM, but AFAICT this patch of yours never got sent to the list, oversight? > * ds/midx-expire-repack (2019-01-27) 10 commits > - midx: add test that 'expire' respects .keep files > - multi-pack-index: test expire while adding packs > - midx: implement midx_repack() > - multi-pack-index: prepare 'repack' subcommand > - multi-pack-index: implement 'expire' subcommand > - midx: refactor permutation logic and pack sorting > - midx: simplify computation of pack name lengths > - multi-pack-index: prepare for 'expire' subcommand > - Docs: rearrange subcommands for multi-pack-index > - repack: refactor pack deletion for future use > > "git multi-pack-index expire/repack" are new subcommands that > consult midx file and are used to drop unused pack files and > coalesce small pack files that are still in use. > > Comments? I have not used this myself, but skimmed the patches. My 0.02: Seems safe to integrate since it's fairly well-tested at MSFT & off by default. > * ew/repack-with-bitmaps-by-default (2019-03-18) 3 commits > - pack-objects: default to writing bitmap hash-cache > - t5310: correctly remove bitmaps for jgit test > - repack: enable bitmaps by default on bare repos > > The connectivity bitmaps are created by default in bare > repositories now; also the pathname hash-cache is created by > default to avoid making crappy deltas when repacking. > > Will merge to 'next'. Pushing *from* a bare repo isn't going to be super common (although stuff like server->server replication...). The case I reported in https://public-inbox.org/git/87zhoz8b9o.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ will result in some users seeing a huge slowdown due to this in some cases. I'm inclined to hold that sort of thing off until we get that sorted out / perf tested. It taking ~2m instead of ~500ms sucks pretty badly (in my test-case). > * ab/gc-docs (2019-04-08) 11 commits > - gc docs: remove incorrect reference to gc.auto=0 > - gc docs: clarify that "gc" doesn't throw away referenced objects > - gc docs: note "gc --aggressive" in "fast-import" > - gc docs: downplay the usefulness of --aggressive > - gc docs: note how --aggressive impacts --window & --depth > - gc docs: fix formatting for "gc.writeCommitGraph" > - gc docs: re-flow the "gc.*" section in "config" > - gc docs: include the "gc.*" section from "config" in "gc" > - gc docs: clean grammar for "gc.bigPackThreshold" > - gc docs: stop noting "repack" flags > - gc docs: modernize the advice for manually running "gc" > > Update docs around "gc". > > Will merge to 'next'. Any chance on making that s/next/master/ sooner than later? It's just doc changes so I think the usual "let's cook in next..." has less value, and I have some follow-ups I'd like to submit sooner than later without me/you dealing with conflicts. If not, no problem :) > * nd/precious (2019-04-09) 1 commit > - Introduce "precious" file concept > > "git clean" learned to pay attention to the 'precious' attributes > and keep untracked paths with the attribute instead of removing > when the "--keep-precious" is given. > > Will merge to 'next'. Duy had a message about this in https://public-inbox.org/git/CACsJy8AEZ-Lz6zgEsuNukvphB9TTa9FAC1gK05fhnie2xtfc9w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ If that was just a "I don't have time to deal with Ævar's deluge of comments" (sorry!) I'm happy to re-roll with the nits I had if anyone thinks those make sense (doc & test adjustments...). But that note is terse, not sure if it means "let's drop this no matter what" (for reasons...), ..., Duy? > * nd/diff-parseopt-4 (2019-03-24) 20 commits > [...] > + diff-parseopt: convert --[no-]abbrev > [...] > Will merge to 'master'. Have some stuff I meant to re-roll conflicting with this, will be good to have it in master. > * pw/rebase-i-internal-rfc (2019-03-21) 12 commits > - rebase -i: run without forking rebase--interactive > - rebase: use a common action enum > - rebase -i: use struct rebase_options in do_interactive_rebase() > - rebase -i: use struct rebase_options to parse args > - rebase -i: use struct object_id for squash_onto > - rebase -i: use struct commit when parsing options > - rebase -i: remove duplication > - rebase -i: combine rebase--interactive.c with rebase.c > - rebase: use OPT_RERERE_AUTOUPDATE() > - rebase: rename write_basic_state() > - sequencer: always discard index after checkout > - Merge branch 'ag/sequencer-reduce-rewriting-todo' into pw/rebase-i-internal-rfc > (this branch uses ag/sequencer-reduce-rewriting-todo.) > > The internal implementation of "git rebase -i" has been updated to > avoid forking a separate "rebase--interactive" process. > > Comments? Is this ready? I gave this some stress testing/review in your infra, works for me so far, and a good performance improvement. My only problem with it is that the commit message doesn't note just quite how awesome it is, but I can live with that :)
