From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35ADE1F4B4 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 22:33:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388824AbgLIWbj (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:31:39 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51871 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388819AbgLIWbb (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:31:31 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038289EF76; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:30:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=UcOh3T/DGtcg 39wIxq8xj1cykIc=; b=qH+tILWUwwbKEEPaNLASqZndrqEPp7foZ4HpivjQ6ORn +rNa1qmcQ+uzUrvnQGX+fQxVUA47YrwVTQ7atatMRMEXaivSYMdgrAjUFhFHjqOt q8jMT1zoJWjJ0Ky8kU5FexEjeIZc9I2Wzugst/3t8/z6GnOPynr/9yxf4KqBwYs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=wE4G/1 3YI4SBWvGuxM9VWKrG6hnF94kMd4yjh5wY9wYQQ/b2qKQgz5/ABq1OU5X5udtcal Woy7nWRG2p/cI4t9PaI2aAdLPmpGFuhQLwmnVpxTy2D3R/jeVqi38tzicklhdsle GcnvDTkGHHbLU4vIMc5mhl/hjfx6Fqc7E7H/s= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6EC9EF75; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:30:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 734BE9EF74; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:30:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , "brian m . carlson" , Eric Sunshine , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] make "mktag" use fsck_tag() References: <20201126222257.5629-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20201209200140.29425-1-avarab@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 14:30:45 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20201209200140.29425-1-avarab@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFy?= =?utf-8?B?IEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Wed, 9 Dec 2020 21:01:30 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2E70AEA4-3A6E-11EB-9509-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > This version should address all the comments Junio made on v2. Changes: > > * The whole "extra" fsck option is gone, I just didn't realize I > could set the new check to "ignore", and then manually promote it. > > * Ejected "mktag: reword write_object_file() error". It was the same > phrasing as "git tag" uses, let's just keep it. > > * Clarifications in docs/commit messages > > * There's 2 extra patches at the end now which take the first steps > into making "git mktag" more of a normal builtin. It reads fsck.* > config variables, so you can turn off that "no extra headers" check > through the normal fsck.=3Dignore config. > > It should also be moved to getopts, and we could make it support > --no-strict to have the same idea of error/warning as fsck itself, > but that's #leftoverbits, along with moving it to i18n. > > It would be nice to have patches 1-8 merged down if they're deemed > ready, and if 9-10 aren't deemed wanted just discard them. I think > it makes sense though... Thanks. I haven't read the individual patches, but spotted an obvious "is is" typo in the doc while scanning through the end result of applying all of them. Documentation/git-mktag.txt | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git c/Documentation/git-mktag.txt w/Documentation/git-mktag.txt index e1506dde56..2c1afedef6 100644 --- c/Documentation/git-mktag.txt +++ w/Documentation/git-mktag.txt @@ -27,10 +27,9 @@ write a tag found in `my-tag`: The difference is that mktag will die before writing the tag if the tag doesn't pass a linkgit:git-fsck[1] check. =20 -The "fsck" check done mktag is is stricter than what -linkgit:git-fsck[1] would run by default in that all `fsck.` -messages are promoted from warnings to errors (so e.g. a missing -"tagger" line is an error). +The "fsck" check done mktag is stricter than what linkgit:git-fsck[1] +would run by default in that all `fsck.` messages are promoted +from warnings to errors (so e.g. a missing "tagger" line is an error). =20 Extra headers in the object are also an error under mktag, but ignored by linkgit:git-fsck[1]. This extra check can be turned off by setting