Re: [PATCH 0/3] update sha1dc

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Adam Dinwoodie <adam@dinwoodie.org>,
	Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>,
	"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
	Michael Kebe <michael.kebe@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] update sha1dc
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:23:19 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kaaRsUBAxRKLPxjuk=oRrw2zBdoHWd9iNDmTbY9MpqN-w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170606151231.25172-1-avarab@gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
> This updates sha1dc fixing the issue on Cygwin introduced in 2.13.1,
> and hopefully not regressing elsewhere. Liam, it would be much
> appreciated if you could test this on SPARC.
>
> As before the "sha1dc: update from upstream" patch is what should
> fast-track to master/maint and be in 2.13.2, the other two are the
> cooking submodule use, that's all unchanged aside from of course the
> submodule pointing to the same upstream commit as the code import
> itself does.
>
> Junio: There's a whitespace change to sha1.h that am warns about, but
> which it applies anyway that you didn't apply from my previous
> patch. I think it probably makes sense to just take upstream's
> whitespace shenanigans as-is instead of seeing that diff every time we
> update. I guess we could also send them a pull request...

I would suggest the pull request.

Also as to not make the mistake from before that I jump on the
submodule bandwagon here:
Patch 1 ought to go in its on series/patch, so with that out the way
we have more time to consider the pros and cons of the rest of
the series?

Thanks,
Stefan