Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #01; Wed, 10)

On 10/10, Junio C Hamano wrote:

* ps/stash-in-c (2018-08-31) 20 commits
 - stash: replace all `write-tree` child processes with API calls
 - stash: optimize `get_untracked_files()` and `check_changes()`
 - stash: convert `stash--helper.c` into `stash.c`
 - stash: convert save to builtin
 - stash: make push -q quiet
 - stash: convert push to builtin
 - stash: convert create to builtin
 - stash: convert store to builtin
 - stash: mention options in `show` synopsis
 - stash: convert show to builtin
 - stash: convert list to builtin
 - stash: convert pop to builtin
 - stash: convert branch to builtin
 - stash: convert drop and clear to builtin
 - stash: convert apply to builtin
 - stash: add tests for `git stash show` config
 - stash: rename test cases to be more descriptive
 - stash: update test cases conform to coding guidelines
 - stash: improve option parsing test coverage
 - sha1-name.c: add `get_oidf()` which acts like `get_oid()`

 "git stash" rewritten in C.

 Undecided.  This also has been part of my personal build.  I do not
 offhand recall if this also had the same exposure to the end users
 as "rebase" and "rebase -i".  I am tempted to merge this to 'next'
 soonish.

 Opinions?

There was a v9 of this series [*1*], which hasn't been picked up yet.
Was that intentional, or an oversight?

I left some comments on that iteration.  Some were just style nits,
but I think at least [*2*] should be addressed before we merge this
down to master, not sure if any of my other comments apply to v8 as
well.  I'm happy to send fixup patches, or a patches on top of
this series for that and my other comments, should they apply to v8,
or wait for Paul-Sebastian to send a re-roll.  What do you prefer?

[*1*]: [ref]
[*2*]: [ref]