| Message ID | 20181018100023.7327-1-phillip.wood@talktalk.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | am/rebase: share read_author_script() | expand |
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@talktalk.net> writes: > From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> > > Thanks to Eric for his feedback on v1. I've rerolled based on > that. Patches 1 & 2 are new and try to address some of the concerns > Eric raised, particularly the error handling for a badly edited author > script. See the notes on patches 4 & 5 for the changes to those (they > were previously 2 & 3). I spotted a weird corner case buglet, but it seems that this one is ready for 'next' even without fixing that "give it three times and we will happily continue" thing. Do we know of any other issues? Can we now move it forward? Thanks.
Hi Junio On 25/10/2018 09:59, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@talktalk.net> writes: > >> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> >> >> Thanks to Eric for his feedback on v1. I've rerolled based on >> that. Patches 1 & 2 are new and try to address some of the concerns >> Eric raised, particularly the error handling for a badly edited author >> script. See the notes on patches 4 & 5 for the changes to those (they >> were previously 2 & 3). > > I spotted a weird corner case buglet, but it seems that this one is > ready for 'next' even without fixing that "give it three times and > we will happily continue" thing. Well spotted on the corner case. If you're happy to hold off on moving it to next I can send a re-roll with fixes for that next week or I can do it as a fixup if you want to move this forward now. > Do we know of any other issues? Can we now move it forward? I don't know of any other issues but I don't think anyone else has looked at this iteration. Thanks for taking a look at these. Best Wishes Phillip > Thanks. >
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@talktalk.net> writes: >> I spotted a weird corner case buglet, but it seems that this one is >> ready for 'next' even without fixing that "give it three times and >> we will happily continue" thing. > > Well spotted on the corner case. If you're happy to hold off on moving > it to next I can send a re-roll with fixes for that next week or I can > do it as a fixup if you want to move this forward now. OK, I'll mark it as "expecting a reroll".
From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> Thanks to Eric for his feedback on v1. I've rerolled based on that. Patches 1 & 2 are new and try to address some of the concerns Eric raised, particularly the error handling for a badly edited author script. See the notes on patches 4 & 5 for the changes to those (they were previously 2 & 3). v1 cover letter: This is a follow up to pw/rebase-i-author-script-fix, it reduces code duplication and improves rebase's parsing of the author script. After this I'll do another series to share the code to write the author script. Phillip Wood (5): am: don't die in read_author_script() am: improve author-script error reporting am: rename read_author_script() add read_author_script() to libgit sequencer: use read_author_script() builtin/am.c | 60 ++-------------- sequencer.c | 192 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- sequencer.h | 3 + 3 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 127 deletions(-)