On 15/03/17 15:57, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 14/03/17 23:46, brian m. carlson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the SHA1_HEADER include is not defined in such a case, developers
>>>>> see spurious errors when using these tools. Furthermore, while using a
>>>>> macro as the argument to #include is permitted by C11, it isn't
>>>>> permitted by C89 and C99, and there are known implementations which
>>>>> reject it.
>>>>
>>
>>> Junio, do you want to amend the commit message before you merge it?
>>
>> Yes, please! ;-)
>
> If only you were a few hours quicker.
Oops, sorry. When I wrote that I didn't know it was already in 'next'.
[I tend not to reply to emails as soon as I read them (because it
often gets me into trouble!), but wait until I've read everything
in my inbox. Unfortunately, I get so much email, it can be hours
later before I respond ... (I keep saying that I will unsubscribe
from some mailing lists ;-) ).]
> Let me see how bad the fallout is to revert the merge to 'next' and
> merge an amended version in.
Hmm, I didn't intend to add to your workload! Is it worth the hassle?
In the great scheme of things, it's not a major issue. I dunno.
> I _think_ the whole "Furthermore" sentence can go, since nobody
> complained since cef661fc ("Add support for alternate SHA1 library
> implementations.", 2005-04-21) started using the Makefile construct.
Yep.
[BTW, I haven't finished reading everything in my inbox yet, hopefully
I won't get into trouble. :P ]
ATB,
Ramsay Jones