Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 8:58 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Siddharth Asthana <siddharthasthana31@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Changes in v6: >> > - The function rewrite_ident_line() returns the difference between the >> > new and the old length of the ident line. We were not using this >> > information and instead parsing the buffer again to look for the line >> > ending. This patch set starts using that information to update the >> > buf_offset value in commit_rewrite_person(). >> > - This patch set also tweaks the commit_rewrite_person() so that it is >> > easier to understand and avoids unnecessary parsing of the buffer >> > wherever possible. >> > >> > Siddharth Asthana (4): >> > revision: improve commit_rewrite_person() >> > ident: move commit_rewrite_person() to ident.c >> > ident: rename commit_rewrite_person() to apply_mailmap_to_header() >> > cat-file: add mailmap support >> > >> > Documentation/git-cat-file.txt | 6 +++ >> > builtin/cat-file.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++- >> > cache.h | 6 +++ >> > ident.c | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > revision.c | 50 ++--------------------- >> > t/t4203-mailmap.sh | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > 6 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) >> >> I haven't seen any comments or objections to this round. Are people >> happy about it going forward? I am planning to merge it to 'next' >> and down to 'master' soonish. > > I am biased, but I am happy with the current state of this patch > series. During the last versions of this patch series there were only > comments related to the first patch in the series (revision: improve > commit_rewrite_person()). It seems to me that they were all properly > taken into account, and that the code in that patch is now correct and > relatively simple to understand. Thanks, let's move it forward.
