git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "SZEDER Gábor" <szeder.dev@gmail.com>,
	"Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>, git <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Jonathan Tan" <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Subject: Re: New semantic patches vs. in-flight topics [was: Re: [PATCH 00/19] Bring more repository handles into our code base]
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:30:40 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZO6tAUOjO4YCostLmogGSwMmxGHj7g1kM1fNJWqJoFUA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqefchroj4.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:38 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 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@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-10-23 17:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-16 23:35 [PATCH 00/19] Bring more repository handles into our code base Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 01/19] sha1_file: allow read_object to read objects in arbitrary repositories Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 02/19] packfile: allow has_packed_and_bad to handle " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 03/19] object-store: allow read_object_file_extended to read from " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 04/19] object-store: prepare read_object_file to deal with " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 05/19] object-store: prepare has_{sha1, object}_file[_with_flags] to handle " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 06/19] object: parse_object to honor its repository argument Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 07/19] commit: allow parse_commit* to handle arbitrary repositories Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 08/19] commit-reach.c: allow paint_down_to_common " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 09/19] commit-reach.c: allow merge_bases_many " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 10/19] commit-reach.c: allow remove_redundant " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 11/19] commit-reach.c: allow get_merge_bases_many_0 " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 12/19] commit-reach: prepare get_merge_bases " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 13/19] commit-reach: prepare in_merge_bases[_many] " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 14/19] commit: prepare get_commit_buffer " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 15/19] commit: prepare repo_unuse_commit_buffer " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 16/19] commit: prepare logmsg_reencode " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 17/19] pretty: prepare format_commit_message " Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 18/19] submodule: use submodule repos for object lookup Stefan Beller
2018-10-19 20:37   ` Jonathan Tan
2018-10-25  9:14   ` SZEDER Gábor
2018-10-31 13:38   ` Derrick Stolee
2018-11-01 19:13     ` Stefan Beller
2018-10-16 23:35 ` [PATCH 19/19] submodule: don't add submodule as odb for push Stefan Beller
2018-10-19 20:39   ` Jonathan Tan
2018-10-17 12:41 ` [PATCH 00/19] Bring more repository handles into our code base Derrick Stolee
2018-10-17 17:53   ` Stefan Beller
2018-10-18 18:37     ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] Bring the_repository into cmd_foo Stefan Beller
2018-10-18 18:37       ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] repository: have get_the_repository() to remove the_repository dependency Stefan Beller
2018-10-18 18:37       ` [RFC PATCH 2/2 (BREAKS BUILD)] builtin/merge-base.c: do not rely on the_repository any more Stefan Beller
2018-10-18 21:01       ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] Bring the_repository into cmd_foo Jonathan Tan
2018-10-18 23:23         ` Stefan Beller
2018-10-19  7:23 ` [PATCH 00/19] Bring more repository handles into our code base Junio C Hamano
2018-10-22 17:39 ` New semantic patches vs. in-flight topics [was: Re: [PATCH 00/19] Bring more repository handles into our code base] SZEDER Gábor
2018-10-22 18:54   ` Stefan Beller
2018-10-25  1:59     ` SZEDER Gábor
2018-10-25 19:25       ` Stefan Beller
2018-10-22 22:49   ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-23  0:26     ` Stefan Beller
2018-10-23  4:24       ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-23  9:38     ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-23 10:15       ` Carlo Arenas
2018-10-23 10:21         ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-23 17:30       ` Stefan Beller [this message]
2018-10-24  1:22         ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-25  5:39   ` Jeff King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAGZ79kZO6tAUOjO4YCostLmogGSwMmxGHj7g1kM1fNJWqJoFUA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=sbeller@google.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=szeder.dev@gmail.com \
    --subject='Re: New semantic patches vs. in-flight topics [was: Re: [PATCH 00/19] Bring more repository handles into our code base]' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).