Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> This addresses all of the known test failures from v1 of this set of >>> changes. In particular I have reworked commit_tree_extended which >>> was flagged by smatch, -Werror=array-bounds, and the leak detector. >>> >>> One functional bug was fixed in repo_for_each_abbrev where it was >>> mistakenly displaying too many ambiguous oids. >>> >>> I am posting this so that people review and testing of this patchset >>> won't be distracted by the known and fixed issues. >> >> We haven't seen any reviews on this second round, and have had it >> outside 'next' for too long. I am tempted to say that we merge it >> to 'next' and see if anybody screams at this point. > > FWIW out of all the "Needs review" topics this one seemed like the most > deserving of another pair of eyes, and I was planning to review some of > the patches here this week + the weekend. If my review takes too long > (taking longer than this weekend) I can give another update next week > saying "too hard for me, please don't wait for me" to unblock you from > merging to next. > > Thanks. Unfortunately I don't think I can finish reviewing the rest of the series (after all this time I've only been able to review just 4 out of 30 patches). I'm also stuck on trying to understand patch 5, as there is a lot going on there. FWIW a lot (perhaps all?) of my comments so far were around readability and not material to the actual design or approach of anything AFAICS. So, it's time for me to say "don't bother waiting for me" as I said (predicted?) earlier. Don't bother waiting for me. Thanks.
