Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2018, #02; Tue, 6)

[Junio C Hamano]

Martin Ågren  writes:

>>  Is this ready for 'next'?
>
> I am not aware of any open questions or issues. You thought out loud
> about how the series was structured, in particular about introducing a
> successful test, then redefining it, as opposed to introducing it as a
> failing test, then making it succeed. I hope I managed to motivate my
> choice better in v2 (which is what you have picked up).
>
> Duy wondered if it was sane to use a pager when we know that we are
> "--get"-ing at most one config item. In v2, I addressed this by turning
> on paging for a more careful selection of "--get"-ters.

Yeah, I am aware of these exchanges, and they are resolved nicely, I
think.  I was mostly asking if other people have concerns we haven't
thought of yet.

Let's merge this to 'next', then.

Thanks.

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2018, #02; Tue, 6)

[Duy Nguyen]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Martin Ågren  wrote:
> On 7 March 2018 at 00:34, Junio C Hamano  wrote:
>
>> * ma/config-page-only-in-list-mode (2018-02-21) 3 commits
>>  - config: change default of `pager.config` to "on"
>>  - config: respect `pager.config` in list/get-mode only
>>  - t7006: add tests for how git config paginates
>>
>>  In a way similar to how "git tag" learned to honor the pager
>>  setting only in the list mode, "git config" learned to ignore the
>>  pager setting when it is used for setting values (i.e. when the
>>  purpose of the operation is not to "show").
>>
>>  Is this ready for 'next'?
>
> I am not aware of any open questions or issues. You thought out loud
> about how the series was structured, in particular about introducing a
> successful test, then redefining it, as opposed to introducing it as a
> failing test, then making it succeed. I hope I managed to motivate my
> choice better in v2 (which is what you have picked up).
>
> Duy wondered if it was sane to use a pager when we know that we are
> "--get"-ing at most one config item. In v2, I addressed this by turning
> on paging for a more careful selection of "--get"-ters.

Yeah I got busy with stuff and didn't look at it. I've just checked
what's in 'pu'. Looks good to me.
-- 
Duy

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2018, #02; Tue, 6)

[Martin Ågren]

On 7 March 2018 at 00:34, Junio C Hamano  wrote:

> * ma/config-page-only-in-list-mode (2018-02-21) 3 commits
>  - config: change default of `pager.config` to "on"
>  - config: respect `pager.config` in list/get-mode only
>  - t7006: add tests for how git config paginates
>
>  In a way similar to how "git tag" learned to honor the pager
>  setting only in the list mode, "git config" learned to ignore the
>  pager setting when it is used for setting values (i.e. when the
>  purpose of the operation is not to "show").
>
>  Is this ready for 'next'?

I am not aware of any open questions or issues. You thought out loud
about how the series was structured, in particular about introducing a
successful test, then redefining it, as opposed to introducing it as a
failing test, then making it succeed. I hope I managed to motivate my
choice better in v2 (which is what you have picked up).

Duy wondered if it was sane to use a pager when we know that we are
"--get"-ing at most one config item. In v2, I addressed this by turning
on paging for a more careful selection of "--get"-ters.

Martin

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2018, #02; Tue, 6)

[Daniel Jacques]

> It would be great to have this rebooted now that my perl cleanup efforts
> have un-blocked this. Will be happy to help review & test the next
> iteration.

Yes, I was just thinking the same thing. I wanted to make sure the Perl
changes had landed, and I'm pleased to see that they have. I should have
time in the next few days to rebase and put up a new version of the patch
series. I'll keep you in the loop, and thanks for pinging!

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2018, #02; Tue, 6)

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Wed, Mar 07 2018, Johannes Schindelin jotted:

> Hi Dan,
>
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> * dj/runtime-prefix (2017-12-05) 4 commits
>>  . exec_cmd: RUNTIME_PREFIX on some POSIX systems
>>  . Makefile: add Perl runtime prefix support
>>  . Makefile: add support for "perllibdir"
>>  . Makefile: generate Perl header from template file
>>
>>  A build-time option has been added to allow Git to be told to refer
>>  to its associated files relative to the main binary, in the same
>>  way that has been possible on Windows for quite some time, for
>>  Linux, BSDs and Darwin.
>>
>>  Perhaps it is about time to reboot the effort?
>
> You probably missed this in the huge "What's cooking" mail. Are you game?

It would be great to have this rebooted now that my perl cleanup efforts
have un-blocked this. Will be happy to help review & test the next
iteration.

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2018, #02; Tue, 6)

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Dan,

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> * dj/runtime-prefix (2017-12-05) 4 commits
>  . exec_cmd: RUNTIME_PREFIX on some POSIX systems
>  . Makefile: add Perl runtime prefix support
>  . Makefile: add support for "perllibdir"
>  . Makefile: generate Perl header from template file
> 
>  A build-time option has been added to allow Git to be told to refer
>  to its associated files relative to the main binary, in the same
>  way that has been possible on Windows for quite some time, for
>  Linux, BSDs and Darwin.
> 
>  Perhaps it is about time to reboot the effort?

You probably missed this in the huge "What's cooking" mail. Are you game?

Ciao,
Johannes