On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:29:40PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > From a selfish perspective, I, would prefer for object-ids to not happen > quite yet for the refs code. I have already prepared (but not yet sent) > a new version of the refs backend vtable (and lmdb) code on top of > refs-backend-pre-vtable, and it'll be a hassle to reroll it on top of > new object-id stuff. > > I guess I'll go ahead and send mine now, and we can later make a > decision about how to deal with the object-id stuff. As Jeff pointed out, the patches to refs.c were mostly dropped, as the code that they modified had been removed. The likelihood of conflict is therefore low unless you're using struct object a lot. My preference is that new code use object_id where possible, because otherwise I'm going to have to go through it later and fix it up. Keeping in mind that the refs code is likely to undergo a lot of changes, I'll try to keep away from it for now, but it will need to be converted at some point. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature