Hi, On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, Johan Herland wrote: > On Saturday 09 June 2007, Alex Riesen wrote: > > On 6/9/07, Johan Herland <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > mktag.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++------------- > > > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > What is this change good for? > > How did you justify the type selection for your > > loop index variable? > > > > IOW, the patch looks very useless. > > I agree. By itself, the patch is useless. Then it shouldn't be there. It seems that you do not place the cuts between patches at the _conceptual_ layer. Therefore, they seem intrusive and often the meaning evades me. So, if I understood the purpose of this patch series correctly, namely to use the same verification routines both for creation as for validation of tags, you could have - moved one function into the library (the stricter one), saying "move this_function() into libgit.a to make it usable from git-bla" in the commit body, - used that from the other program, removing the now-unused function, - and then changed the behaviour to be more chatty or some such. As it is, you have a mix of conceptually different changes in almost every patch, and some changes that conceptually belong into the same patch, are not. Be that as may, I think it is not a good change to reuse the same function like you did, exactly because one version _should_ be more forgiving than the other. Ciao, Dscho - 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
