[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       git
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] Add support for mailmap in cat-file
From:       Siddharth Asthana <siddharthasthana31 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2022-07-30 7:46:50
Message-ID: 1396d611-970f-d11a-ac35-3bf7d03469d8 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]



On 29/07/22 01:02, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 8:58 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Siddharth Asthana <siddharthasthana31@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Changes in v6:
>>>> - The function rewrite_ident_line() returns the difference between the
>>>>    new and the old length of the ident line. We were not using this
>>>>    information and instead parsing the buffer again to look for the line
>>>>    ending. This patch set starts using that information to update the
>>>>    buf_offset value in commit_rewrite_person().
>>>> - This patch set also tweaks the commit_rewrite_person() so that it is
>>>>    easier to understand and avoids unnecessary parsing of the buffer
>>>>    wherever possible.
>>>>
>>>> Siddharth Asthana (4):
>>>>    revision: improve commit_rewrite_person()
>>>>    ident: move commit_rewrite_person() to ident.c
>>>>    ident: rename commit_rewrite_person() to apply_mailmap_to_header()
>>>>    cat-file: add mailmap support
>>>>
>>>>   Documentation/git-cat-file.txt |  6 +++
>>>>   builtin/cat-file.c             | 43 +++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>   cache.h                        |  6 +++
>>>>   ident.c                        | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   revision.c                     | 50 ++---------------------
>>>>   t/t4203-mailmap.sh             | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   6 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> I haven't seen any comments or objections to this round.  Are people
>>> happy about it going forward?  I am planning to merge it to 'next'
>>> and down to 'master' soonish.
>>
>> I am biased, but I am happy with the current state of this patch
>> series. During the last versions of this patch series there were only
>> comments related to the first patch in the series (revision: improve
>> commit_rewrite_person()). It seems to me that they were all properly
>> taken into account, and that the code in that patch is now correct and
>> relatively simple to understand.
> 
> Thanks, let's move it forward.
Thanks a lot Junio, Phillip, Đo� n, Ævar, Johannes, Christian and John 
for helping me with the reviews and making this patch better. Thanks a 
lot for accepting it :)
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]