Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] revamping git_check_attr() API

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> The patches in the earliest part of the series have been sent to the
>> list already; there is no substantial change (I think I made a
>> typofix in the commit log message found by Eric).
>
> and a new patch got added here:
>
>     attr.c: tighten constness around "git_attr" structure
>
> I cannot find it on the list though?

Just like everybody else has private "wip" version to be sent to the
list, I have my own.  I haven't had enough time to cook v3 yet into
a publishable state yet.

> So I wondered when you prefix the subject of the patches with "attr.c:"
> and when with "attr:".

The early ones with label attr.c are meant to be "good clean-ups,
whether we decide to go with API update or not, that can live
standalone outside the series"; the remainders may have been better
labeled with fully-spelled "attributes:", perhaps, as that is not
about the attr.c file alone, but is about the whole attributes
subsystem.

--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]