On 13/05/2025 21:13, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Changes in v2:
>>
>> Patch #3 is the only one changed (as a result of Patrick's review [0]):
>>
>> - add some blank lines to make the option handling blocks
>> easier to see.
>> - add a comment to 'gitconfig' and 'gitattributes' options
>> to indicate the default values.
>>
>> Note: The indicated defaults for the 'gitconfig' and 'gitattributes'
>> are only valid when the 'prefix' option is defaulted (or not /usr).
>> Indicating the 'correct' value when -Dprefix=/usr in the comment
>> would consume too much space. Is this acceptable, or is it too
>> confusing/misleading?
>>
>> Also, thanks to Eli for testing patch #5 on Solaris and confirming
>> that it fixes the regression [1].
>
> Yeah, thanks, all.
>
>> A range-diff against v1 is given below.
>> ...
>> 3: fece809f11 ! 3: a385bbed83 meson: correct path to system config/attribute files
>> @@ meson.build: libgit_c_args = [
>> ...
>> description: 'Environment used when spawning the pager')
>> 4: d49afaedf3 = 4: 0d00951475 meson.build: correct setting of GIT_EXEC_PATH
>> 5: 69848e557f = 5: 150e4110d2 configure.ac: upgrade to a compilation check for sysinfo
>
> Hmph, For #5 I am seeing this difference:
>
> @@ Commit message
> Commit 50dec7c566 ("config.mak.uname: add sysinfo() configuration for
> cygwin", 2025-04-17) added a similar 'sysinfo()' check to the autoconf
> build. This check looked for the 'sysinfo()' function itself, rather
> - than just the header, but it will fail (incorrectly set HAVE_SYSINFO)
> + that just the header, but it will fail (incorrectly set HAVE_SYSINFO)
> for the same reason.
>
> In order to correctly identify the 'sysinfo()' function we require as
>
> The original comes from what was posted in the first iteration, and
> somehow the change is not showing in your range-diff, which is a bit
> disturbing.
Oops! yeah, I noticed the typo late in the last round and changed that
patch text directly. :)
I could have sworn that I made the same change to the commit message
as well, but ...
Sorry about that!
> I think for now I'll just amend the log message of #5 back to what
> was in the previous round locally.
Yes please! Thanks.
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
