Re: [PATCH v11 00/22] Convert "git stash" to C builtin

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Junio,

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > 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