From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6A020954 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 23:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751709AbdLGXOF (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:14:05 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:50260 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751010AbdLGXOE (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:14:04 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F9EC6640; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:14:03 -0500 (EST) 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=uLQpSAeQMhU7 vGh7wpxJRsj+P5Y=; b=GhAx0tMWwi/csGPN71ES5si+C09pTtDgGs5/CZJWv5mv K23QGoX87U7MS0G929MUdz4Ml7lv1opx0TLlZD0yFgwpstAfokdFFGDG1LFGelHV 8rEIjZy73A9viPiwedV/VHq27LPv0KFrh+vOnR4HxynyJCpLqKwEM3DVd7/5u2c= 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=Y5Agyb A7xkcNciS8HmJsyHvE/J1BTKvQp+UxANH/YyHceo2Q4yJtWrwBnbKHbVXfhJDQCC 3xZZ5dwuw9+XkfSmHEc08UvSIHejXPFjjY/aaRMGxTnQmfydJcR/oAdVUqSwmR4e yMd8cVWQcMmDXunibxjBwCOLWIUQ4Q5mlI1xE= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A51C663F; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:14:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E049C663E; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:14:03 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Cc: Kaartic Sivaraam , Eric Sunshine , Git mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] builtin/branch: strip refs/heads/ using skip_prefix References: <20171129034620.4719-1-kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> <20171201055933.19368-1-kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:14:02 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:00:27 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 50B63DC0-DBA4-11E7-BDFB-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > SZEDER G=C3=A1bor writes: > >> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Kaartic Sivaraam >> wrote: >>> Sorry, missed a ';' in v4. >>> >>> The surprising thing I discovered in the TravisCI build for v4 >>> was that apart from the 'Documentation' build the 'Static Analysis' >>> build passed, with the following output, >>> >>> -- >>> $ ci/run-static-analysis.sh >>> GIT_VERSION =3D 2.13.1.1972.g6ced3f745 >>> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/array.cocci >>> SPATCH result: contrib/coccinelle/array.cocci.patch >>> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/free.cocci >>> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci >>> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/qsort.cocci >>> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/strbuf.cocci >>> SPATCH result: contrib/coccinelle/strbuf.cocci.patch >>> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/swap.cocci >>> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/xstrdup_or_null.cocci >>> >>> The command "ci/run-static-analysis.sh" exited with 0. >> >> Perhaps Coccinelle should have errored out, or perhaps its 0 exit code >> means "I didn't find any code matching any of the semantic patches tha= t >> required transformation". >> >>> I guess static analysis tools make an assumption that the source >>> code is syntactically valid for them to work correctly. So, I guess >>> we should at least make sure the code 'compiles' before running >>> the static analysis tool even though we don't build it completely. >>> I'm not sure if it's a bad thing to run the static analysis on code >>> that isn't syntactically valid, though. >> >> Travis CI already runs 6 build jobs compiling Git. And that is in >> addition to the one that you should have run yourself before even >> thinking about submitting v4 ;) That's plenty to catch errors like >> these. And if any of those builds fail because Git can't be built or >> because of a test failure, then Coccinelle's success doesn't matter at >> all, because the commit is toast anyway. > > Somehow this fell underneath my radar horizon. I see v4 and v5 of > 4/4 but do not seem to find 1-3/4. Is this meant to be a standalone > patch, or am I expected to already have 1-3 that we already are > committed to take? Ah, I am guessing that this would apply on top of 1-3/4 in the thread with <20171118172648.17918-1-kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> The base of the series seems to predate 16169285 ("Merge branch 'jc/branch-name-sanity'", 2017-11-28), so let me see how it looks by applying those three plus this one on top of 'master' before that point.