Re: git updates stalled?

[Frank Terbeck <ft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Aaron Schrab wrote:
> At 13:35 +0100 18 Feb 2013, Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wayne Davison wrote:
>>> I also figured that the git change was imminent, and would interfere with
>>> starting to use git directly.  Has that been delayed?
>>
>>I was leaving a little time to see if anyone wanted to further comment
>>on the zsh-development-guide cleanup from a week ago.
>>
>>I would suggest that we go ahead with the switch now and get the whole
>>thing over with. How about if Wayne simply picks a time convenient to

Agreed.

>>him and lets everyone know so we don't try to commit anything in the
>>middle of it?

That sounds like a plan.

>>Once that's done, we can arrange to apply Aaron's patch from 30840.
>>Possibly with modifications as per 30870. Aaron:?
>
> The actual modification was described in 30841, only mentioned in 30870.  But
> to simplify things, here's an updated version with that modification already
> applied.
>
> The line below would allow this message to be fed as-is to `git am -c`, except
> that the commit message below will need to be modified to include the sequence
> number for this message.
>
> --- 8< ---
>
> Subject: [PATCH] Generate patch level using `git describe`
[...]

I've applied Aaron's patch and the result looks good:

% print $ZSH_PATCHLEVEL
zsh-5.0.2-26-g85ea877

Everything else looks good, too.

>>I've prepared a couple of further trivial patches to completion
>>functions so as to be able to test it.

Great!   I'd vote for sooner rather than later, now. ;)

Thoughts?

Regards, Frank