Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2026, #02)

On Thu Aug 6, 2026 at 7:08 PM CEST, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Pablo Sabater" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Thu Aug 6, 2026 at 12:48 AM CEST, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>
>>> * ps/cat-file-remote-object-info-type (2026-08-04) 10 commits
>>>  - cat-file: unify default format
>>>  - serve: advertise type capability
>>>  - fetch-object-info: parse type from server response
>>>  - protocol-caps: add type support to object-info
>>>  - fetch-object-info: die() on the remaining error path
>>>  - fetch-object-info: use dedicated struct for the results
>>>  - fetch-object-info: pass arguments directly instead of a struct
>>>  - fetch-object-info: detect malformed server responses
>>>  - t5701: use test_file_size() to get the size of a file
>>>  - Merge branch 'ps/cat-file-remote-object-info' into ps/cat-file-remote-object-info-type
>>>
>>>  The 'remote-object-info' command for 'git cat-file --batch-command'
>>>  has been extended to support the '%(objecttype)' placeholder.
>>>
>>>  Needs review.
>>>  cf. <[email protected]>
>>>  cf. <[email protected]>
>>>  source: <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The topic ps/cat-file-remote-object-info graduated to 'master' last
>> What's cooking [1], so ps/cat-file-remote-object-info-type can go on top
>> of 'master' as is and the merge requirement can be dropped.
>
> Sorry, but what do you mean by a 'merge requirement'?
>
> I generally keep the same base as before when there is no reason to
> rebase.  It makes easier to view the differences between iterations.
> 'git diff @{1} @{0}' would work just fine, for example.  If you
> rebase, you would need to guess from the output of the 'range-diff'
> command, which, while much better than nothing, is still not easy to
> read.
>
> The above is kept on the same synthetic base, as I did not (and do
> not) see any need to rebase, but perhaps you have reasons I missed?

Nothing you missed, sorry, I thought that because this series started
with a based-on trailer due to ps/cat-file-remote-object-info not
in 'master' yet, the:

  - Merge branch 'ps/cat-file-remote-object-info' into ps/cat-file-remote-object-info-type

was because of that, and since last reroll I sent I dropped that based-on
I thought that it wasn't needed anymore.

So, my mistake there.

>
> By the way, I just noticed that the commit count includes the number
> of synthetic bases, which may be a bit confusing, if not wrong.  The
> tooling to maintain the 'What's cooking' report may rely on the
> count exactly matching the number of lines below the headline, which
> is the number of commits in the 'git log --first-parent master..'
> chain.  I might look into changing it to show the number of
> contributor patches in the series, but it may take some time before
> I get to it.

Thanks,
Pablo