On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Junio, could you please drop patches 5-14 from the series; the first four patches >> are the important ones and I'd rather they didn't get held up. Thanks! > > Have these four patches been Acked by interested parties? > > I think I saw 1/N and 2/N acked by Erik and 4/N acked by SSchuberth and > J6t, but any words on 3/N? > > Not that I deeply care nor have environment to test changes to [3/N], but > I am wondering if these need conditional definition to futureproof (e.g. > what happens when the header you are using the definition _I64_MIN from, > or some other headers, started defining these constats?). I'm not sure if I follow this entirely. _I64_MIN is defined by limits.h on Windows, and limits.h has a header-guard (or "#pragma once" as Microsoft-code tends to prefer). Oh, right. You mean if someone else starts defining INTMAX_MAX etc? If someone includes an stdint/inttypes-implementation while including git-compat-util.h, we're going to have a boat-load of similar issues anyway. I think guarding them is something that's better left to when we encounter the problem (if ever). All in all, patch 1 though 4 looks good to me. And thanks to Ramsay for cleaning up my mess :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html