On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 6:16 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * ds/sparse-apply-add-p (2025-05-08) 3 commits > (merged to 'next' on 2025-05-09 at 11ce4306b9) That's unfortunate. While we can't fix the second commit message anymore, can we at least hold off on merging to master until we get a new patch to fix the test cases? cf. https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BHkgvc0UQbhXfP4POtY8GPVpz9J8ZbX3_jyzL_V7GyBbA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BEmMaFQxE9NQgM8M=cgfBHY1p56vnBt7R4CfuiXnq++4Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > * jc/you-still-use-whatchanged (2025-05-12) 6 commits > - whatschanged: list it in BreakingChanges document > - whatchanged: remove when built with WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES > - whatchanged: require --i-still-use-this > - tests: prepare for a world without whatchanged > - doc: prepare for a world without whatchanged > - you-still-use-that??: help deprecating commands for removal > > "git whatchanged" that is longer to type than "git log --raw" > which is its modern rough equivalent has outlived its usefulness > more than 10 years ago. Plan to deprecate and remove it. > > Will merge to 'next'? > source: <20250512190311.1451556-1-gitster@xxxxxxxxx> Can we fix the missing word in 4/6 before merging down? You said you'd fix it up locally, but my view of seen shows the word as still missing. Other than that, it looks good to me. > * tb/midx-avoid-cruft-packs (2025-04-15) 9 commits > - repack: exclude cruft pack(s) from the MIDX where possible > - pack-objects: introduce '--stdin-packs=follow' > - pack-objects: swap 'show_{object,commit}_pack_hint' > - pack-objects: fix typo in 'show_object_pack_hint()' > - pack-objects: perform name-hash traversal for unpacked objects > - pack-objects: declare 'rev_info' for '--stdin-packs' earlier > - pack-objects: factor out handling '--stdin-packs' > - pack-objects: limit scope in 'add_object_entry_from_pack()' > - pack-objects: use standard option incompatibility functions > > "pack-objects" has been taught to avoid pointing into objects in > cruft packs from midx. > > Comments? > source: <cover.1744757204.git.me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> This round almost looked good. I just replied to 9/9 mentioning I think he should send in a final re-roll including his fixup 2/9 and some wording improvements to the second paragraph of his commit message in 9/9, and should be good once we get that final re-roll.
