On 09/12/2011 06:28 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> There were a few minor things that looked worth mentioning while
> reviewing, though.
>
> - (style) You seem to be fond of pre-increment a lot, but in general our
> codebase prefers post-increment especially when the end result does not
> make any difference, e.g.
>
> for (i = 1; ...; ++i) {
> ...
OK, changed.
> - (series structure) It might make the series progress easier to follow
> if you introduced check_ref_format_unsafe() in the same commit where
> you change check_ref_format() to take flags parameter.
OK. I'll take the opportunity to rename the functions to
check_refname_format*(), to make it more obvious that they only concern
themselves with the refnames and not the references themselves.
I discovered a bug in my code for handling refnames without
normalization; I will also fix that in v3.
OTOH I am again having serious doubts that trying to support
unnormalized refnames is a good idea. I will write more when I have
time to argue my case.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
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