On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 20 June 2017 at 07:41, Prathamesh Chavan <pc44800@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> But as communicating between child_process is still an issue >> and so there was no simple was to current carry out the >> porting. And hence, a hack was used instead. But after >> discussing it, instead using the repository-object patch >> series will help to resolve these issues in this situation. > > Just wondering, does that mean that your patch series is dependent on > the repository-object one? I saw some discussion around it recently > but couldn't see it in the latest whats cooking so maybe I missed what > has happened to it. Sorry for such a late reply. In this update, and even in the latest update[1], the patches aren't dependent on the 'repository-object' series. But there are certain issues encountered which I aim to resolve using them. > > Really enjoying your updates, by the way, they are very clear and show > what looks like great progress! Thanks a lot for this, and I hope to keep improving it. :) Thanks, Prathamesh Chavan [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/CAME+mvUrr8EA-6jbCZdpB7dMZ5CN3RyY7yoRoUBoiZw=sH6Ysw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
