Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] builtin: implement, document and test url-parse

Matheus Afonso Martins Moreira [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Reviewers comment: Nicely done.

Thank you!

quoted

More a question to myself, may be, about t9904 (and may be other parts)
I have in mind that the parser learned to handle

file://server/share/repo
correctly under Windows.
I don't know if this needs to be addressed here or in a follow-up commit ?

I'd be happy to revisit this in a follow-up. It's been a while
since I used MSYS but I do remember the fact it rewrites paths
internally. I wasn't sure how to handle it properly in the tests.

So the only potential thing that is missing from the series is the
above, which we are fine to postpone in a follow-up series?  I think
that is a good stopping point.  Given that this command is new, it
is fine that it has known and documented short-comings that will be
improved (of course on the other hand, we are not in any urgent need
for this new command, so we do not have to ship it half-baked).

Is everybody happy with the patches in the current shape and should
I mark it for 'next'?

Thanks.

On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 12:50:47PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Matheus Afonso Martins Moreira [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

Reviewers comment: Nicely done.

Thank you!

quoted

More a question to myself, may be, about t9904 (and may be other parts)
I have in mind that the parser learned to handle

file://server/share/repo
correctly under Windows.
I don't know if this needs to be addressed here or in a follow-up commit ?

I'd be happy to revisit this in a follow-up. It's been a while
since I used MSYS but I do remember the fact it rewrites paths
internally. I wasn't sure how to handle it properly in the tests.

So the only potential thing that is missing from the series is the
above, which we are fine to postpone in a follow-up series?  I think
that is a good stopping point.  Given that this command is new, it
is fine that it has known and documented short-comings that will be
improved (of course on the other hand, we are not in any urgent need
for this new command, so we do not have to ship it half-baked).

Is everybody happy with the patches in the current shape and should
I mark it for 'next'?

Thanks.

I am happy with merging to next.