Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.8.0-rc2

Max Horn [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 11 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
...
* "branch --delete" has "branch -d" but "push --delete" does not.

This states a problem, but not whether (and how) it was resolved?

Thanks; how about

 * "push" learned that its "--delete" option can be shortened to
   "-d", just like "branch --delete" and "branch -d" are the same
   thing.

quoted

* Across the transition at around Git version 2.0, the user used to
  get a pretty loud warning when running "git push" without setting
  push.default configuration variable.  We no longer warn, given that
  the transition is over long time ago.

That last sentence sounds weird... perhaps "the transition was
completed a long time ago" ? Or "the transition ended a long time
ago" ?

 * ... We no longer warn because the transition was completed a long
   time ago.

quoted

* A slight update to the Makefile to mark "phoney" targets
  as such correctly.

phoney -> phony?

Thanks for sharp eyes.

quoted

* Some calls to strcpy(3) triggers a false warning from static
  analysers that are less intelligent than humans, and reducing the
  number of these false hits helps us notice real issues.  A few
  calls to strcpy(3) in test-path-utils that are already safe has
  been rewritten to avoid false wanings.

* Some calls to strcpy(3) triggers a false warning from static
  analysers that are less intelligent than humans, and reducing the
  number of these false hits helps us notice real issues.  A few
  calls to strcpy(3) in "git rerere" that are already safe has been
  rewritten to avoid false wanings.

The above two messages are very similar, only the end differs a bit.

That's deliberate as they are two different fixes to a similar
problems.  We can just omit the names of the components to make them
into one entry if we really wanted to.

quoted

* Asking gitweb for a nonexistent commit left a warning in the server
  log.

  Somebody may want to follow this up with an additional test, perhaps?
  IIRC, we do test that no Perl warnings are given to the server log,
  so this should have been caught if our test coverage were good.

That last paragraph seems odd for a changelog?

I do not think it is wrong to leave a reminder to ourselves that
there are yet more work need to be done.

quoted

* The underlying machinery used by "ls-files -o" and other commands
  have been taught not to create empty submodule ref cache for a

have -> has (the machinery is singular)

Again, thanks for sharp eyes.