Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2019, #01; Thu, 1)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 01:05:12PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> [Graduated to "master"]
>> [...]
>> * jk/repack-silence-auto-bitmap-warning (2019-07-31) 3 commits
>>   (merged to 'next' on 2019-07-31 at 3aa218347c)
>>  + repack: simplify handling of auto-bitmaps and .keep files
>>  + repack: silence warnings when auto-enabled bitmaps cannot be built
>>  + t7700: clean up .keep file in bitmap-writing test
>> 
>>  Squelch unneeded and misleading warnings from "repack" when the
>>  command attempts to generate pack bitmaps without explicitly asked
>>  for by the user.
>
> After your "I need to digest this third one" comment in the thread, I
> was surprised to see this merged so soon. :) I think it's fine, and I'd
> be happy to see it in the upcoming release, but I just wanted to double
> check that it was intentional.

Yes, thanks for the simplification.  It just took me a while to
refresh my memory on the role '--honor-pack-keep' option and
ignore_packed_keep_on_disk setting play in builtin/pack-objects.c,
which is dense code.

>> * jk/tree-walk-overflow (2019-07-31) 6 commits
> ...
>>  Will merge to 'next'.
> 
> Thanks. Stolee noted a minor typo fix in the commit message:
>
>   https://public-inbox.org/git/b99561c9-cd7c-aca0-c7dd-a9916b7bd429@gmail.com/
>
> if it's not too late / too much trouble to fix.

Thanks, both.  I think I caught it before yesterday's integration
run.

>> * js/early-config-with-onbranch (2019-07-31) 1 commit
>>   (merged to 'next' on 2019-08-01 at 26b713c824)
>>  + config: work around bug with includeif:onbranch and early config
>> 
>>  The recently added [includeif "onbranch:branch"] feature does not
>>  work well with an early config mechanism, as it attempts to find
>>  out what branch we are on before we even haven't located the git
>>  repository.  The inclusion during early config scan is ignored to
>>  work around this issue.
>> 
>>  Will merge to 'master'.
>
> I had some open comments here on how the "do we have a repo" check is
> done, but I think what is committed here is functionally equivalent. I
> can pursue the NULL the_repository cleanups separately.

Yeah, I think Dscho's one is good enough for the upcoming release.

Thanks.