Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] object_id part 7

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

 



On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 03:31:59AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> I read through the whole series and didn't find anything objectionable.
> The pointer-arithmetic fix should perhaps graduate separately.

Junio's welcome to take that patch separately if he likes.

> I suggested an additional cleanup around "linelen" in one patch. In the
> name of keeping the number of re-rolls sane, I'm OK if we skip that for
> now (the only reason I mentioned it at all is that you have to justify
> the caveat in the commit message; with the fix, that justification can
> go away).

Let's leave it as it is, assuming Junio's okay with it.  I can send in a
few more patches to clean that up and use skip_prefix that we can drop
on top and graduate separately.

I think the justification is useful as it is, since it explains why we
no longer want to check that particular value for historical reasons.
-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[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]