On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:59 PM SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:54:06AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
> > For the sake of a good history, I would think running 'make coccicheck'
> > and applying the resulting patches would be best as part of the (dirty)
> > merge of any topic
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:39:35PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> I don't really like how this or the previous RFC patch series deal
> with semantic patches (or how some past patch series dealt with them,
> for that matter), for various reasons:
> [..]
I am a little late to this thread, but it
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:54:06AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> For the sake of a good history, I would think running 'make coccicheck'
> and applying the resulting patches would be best as part of the (dirty)
> merge of any topic that proposes new semantic patches, but that would
> add load to
Stefan Beller writes:
>> Anyway, even though "make coccicheck" does not run in subsecond,
>> I've updated my machinery to rebuild the integration branches so
>> that I can optionally queue generated coccicheck patches, and what I
>> pushed out tonight has one at the tip of 'pu' and also another
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:38 AM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> > I actually think this round does a far nicer job playing well with
> > other topics than any earlier series. The pain you are observing I
> > think come primarily from my not making the best use of these
> >
Carlo Arenas writes:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:40 AM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> The tip of 'pu' has trouble with -Wunused on Apple around the
>> delta-islands series.
>
> FWIW the "problem" is actually with -Wunused-function and is AFAIK not
> related to the semantic changes or Apple (AKA
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:40 AM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> The tip of 'pu' has trouble with -Wunused on Apple around the
> delta-islands series.
FWIW the "problem" is actually with -Wunused-function and is AFAIK not
related to the semantic changes or Apple (AKA macOS)
Indeed, I saw this issue
Junio C Hamano writes:
> I actually think this round does a far nicer job playing well with
> other topics than any earlier series. The pain you are observing I
> think come primarily from my not making the best use of these
> patches.
>
> Steppng back a bit, I'd imagine in an ideal world where
Stefan Beller writes:
> Am I overestimating or misunderstanding rerere here?
Yes.
> Would it be realistic for next and master branch instead of pu?
>
> I'd be wary for the master branch, as we may not want to rely on
> spatch without review. (It can produce funny white space issues,
> but
> Stepping back a bit, I'd imagine in an ideal world where "make
> coccicheck" can be done instantaneously _and_ the spatch machinery
> is just as reliable as C compilers.
> [...]
> Now we do not live in that ideal world and [...]
> such a series will have zero
> chance of landing in 'pu', unless
SZEDER Gábor writes:
> I don't really like how this or the previous RFC patch series deal
> with semantic patches (or how some past patch series dealt with them,
> for that matter), for various reasons:
> ...
> How about introducing the concept of "pending" semantic patches,
> stored in
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:39 AM SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:35:31PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > the last patch (applying the semantic patches) has been omitted as that
> > would produce a lot of merge conflicts. Without that patch, this merges
> > cleanly to next.
> >
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:35:31PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> the last patch (applying the semantic patches) has been omitted as that
> would produce a lot of merge conflicts. Without that patch, this merges
> cleanly to next.
>
> As for when to apply the semantic patches, I wondered if we
13 matches
Mail list logo
