Kirill Smelkov [off-list ref] writes:
Here I'm preparing tree-diff.c to be ready for the new tree-walker, so that the
final change is tractable and looks good and non noisy. Some small speedups
are gained along the way. The final bits are almost ready, but I don't want to
release them in a hurry.
No worries. We are not in a hurry to apply non-regression-fix
changes during a pre-release feature freeze period anyway.
This seems to somehow conflict with other topics and does not
cleanly apply on top of your other tree-diff topic, by the way.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 04:28:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Kirill Smelkov [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Here I'm preparing tree-diff.c to be ready for the new tree-walker, so that the
final change is tractable and looks good and non noisy. Some small speedups
are gained along the way. The final bits are almost ready, but I don't want to
release them in a hurry.
No worries. We are not in a hurry to apply non-regression-fix
changes during a pre-release feature freeze period anyway.
I see.
This seems to somehow conflict with other topics and does not
cleanly apply on top of your other tree-diff topic, by the way.
Sorry for the confusion. Could you please do the following:
Patches should be applied over to ks/tree-diff-walk
(74aa4a18). Before applying the patches, please cherry-pick
c90483d9 (tree-diff: no need to manually verify that there is no
mode change for a path)
ef4f0928 (tree-diff: no need to pass match to
skip_uninteresting())
into that branch, and drop them from ks/combine-diff - we'll have one
branch reworking the diff tree-walker, and the other taking advantage of
it for combine-diff.
Then apply sent-here patches, which, as I've verified this time, should
apply cleanly.
Thanks and sorry again,
Kirill