[PATCH 19/36] t/helper: merge test-online-cpus into test-tool

2018-03-17 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy --- Makefile| 2 +- t/helper/test-online-cpus.c | 3 ++- t/helper/test-tool.c| 1 + t/helper/test-tool.h| 1 + t/t3008-ls-files-lazy-init-name-hash.sh | 2 +-

[PATCH 00/36] Combine t/helper binaries into a single one

2018-03-17 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
The number of t/helper binaries is growing, which slows down build process due to increasing link time and also consumes more disk space. This series combines most of them into a new binary called test-tool. Going forward, new test helper programs should be part of this test-tool (with few

[PATCH 01/36] t/helper: add an empty test-tool program

2018-03-17 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
This will become an umbrella program that absorbs most [1] t/helper programs in. By having a single executable binary we reduce disk usage (libgit.a is replicated by every t/helper program) and shorten link time a bit. Running "make --jobs=1; du -sh t/helper" with ccache fully populated, it takes

[PATCH 10/36] t/helper: merge test-dump-cache-tree into test-tool

2018-03-17 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy --- Makefile| 2 +- t/helper/test-dump-cache-tree.c | 3 ++- t/helper/test-tool.c| 1 + t/helper/test-tool.h| 1 + t/t0090-cache-tree.sh | 6 +++--- t/t1700-split-index.sh |

[PATCH 13/36] t/helper: merge test-genrandom into test-tool

2018-03-17 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy --- Makefile | 2 +- t/helper/test-genrandom.c | 3 ++- t/helper/test-tool.c | 1 + t/helper/test-tool.h | 1 + t/t0005-signals.sh| 2 +-

[PATCH 11/36] t/helper: merge test-dump-split-index into test-tool

2018-03-17 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy --- Makefile | 2 +- t/helper/test-dump-split-index.c | 3 +- t/helper/test-tool.c | 1 + t/helper/test-tool.h | 1 + t/t0090-cache-tree.sh| 4 +-- t/t1700-split-index.sh

Re: [PATCH 0/2] routines to generate JSON data

2018-03-17 Thread Jacob Keller
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Jeff King wrote: > 3. Some other similar format. YAML comes to mind. Last time I looked > (quite a while ago), it seemed insanely complex, but I think you > could implement only a reasonable subset. OTOH, I think the tools >

<    1   2