[PATCH 0/2] Fix invalid revision error messages for 1.8.3

2013-05-21 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra 
Hi,

Seeing other patches on the list, I decided that I should do something
for 1.8.3 as well (as opposed to constantly writing new features).  So
here's my contribution.

The first error message has annoyed me endlessly, and I took this
opportunity to fix it.  Interested people can sprinkle in some advice
later.  The second one is a low-hanging while we're there.

Thanks.

Ramkumar Ramachandra (2):
  sha1_name: fix error message for @{u}
  sha1_name: fix error message for @{N}, @{date}

 sha1_name.c   | 17 +++--
 t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh | 15 +--
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

-- 
1.8.3.rc3.6.ga9126d5.dirty

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix invalid revision error messages for 1.8.3

2013-05-21 Thread Junio C Hamano 
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:

 Seeing other patches on the list, I decided that I should do something
 for 1.8.3 as well

Fixes to something that are broken the same way between 'master' and
older release versions are the same as enhancements (which you can
view as fix to lack of feature).  They are not regression fixes
and not for 1.8.3 at this point in the cycle, deep into -rc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix invalid revision error messages for 1.8.3

2013-05-21 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra 
Junio C Hamano wrote:
 Fixes to something that are broken the same way between 'master' and
 older release versions are the same as enhancements (which you can
 view as fix to lack of feature).  They are not regression fixes
 and not for 1.8.3 at this point in the cycle, deep into -rc.

If we view them as enhancements, well and good.  Let's polish them
until we're really happy with them: they're written with the minimal,
but correct philosophy, because the -rc3 window is too small for a
review.

Just to share opinion, they looked like bugs to me, because it's not
about improving the error messages; it's about correcting a defect.
The author could not have possibly intended two error:  lines in the
first one, or an empty string in the second one.  At some point in the
past, the behavior must have been different (a feature must have
introduced these problems: like implicit HEAD for @{N}): the
regression was introduced in the version after that.  So, is it
because that version was too long ago that we don't consider it a
regression (do we backport fixes)?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix invalid revision error messages for 1.8.3

2013-05-21 Thread Junio C Hamano 
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:

 So, is it
 because that version was too long ago that we don't consider it a
 regression (do we backport fixes)?

The regression fixes pre-release -rc period is for is to make sure
to avoid unwanted/unintended behaviour changes between releases.

People have _already_ seen and lived with these issues in released
versions.  Changing it may or may not be getting it back to the
state to that of an even older release, but at that point the
differences do not matter.  It is a fix, too late for the kind of
regression fixes we focus during _this_ -rc period, which is about
regressions between v1.8.2 and 'master'.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix invalid revision error messages for 1.8.3

2013-05-21 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra 
Junio C Hamano wrote:
 People have _already_ seen and lived with these issues in released
 versions.  Changing it may or may not be getting it back to the
 state to that of an even older release, but at that point the
 differences do not matter.  It is a fix, too late for the kind of
 regression fixes we focus during _this_ -rc period, which is about
 regressions between v1.8.2 and 'master'.

Makes sense.

On a related note, I really wonder why people run anything  master
git; it's so easy to compile and use from ~.  The idea isn't insane at
all: most people run a -p ruby from ~ using things like rbenv (yes, it
compiles from source).

(ofcourse servers have to run a release)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html