On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:03 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > One technique these (not just this) recent efforts seem to be > > forgetting is to introduce "new" names that take a_repo and then > > make the existing one a thin wrapper that calls the new one with > > &the_repo as the argument. So you'd rather want to see it less invasive done similar to NO_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS ? Someone (jrnieder?) called that a failed experiment, as now we need to carry that baggage for quite some time and never cleaned up the started migration; only recently Duy started to kill off the_index, which would finish that migration? > FWIW, here is how I am resolving semantic conflicts that I found so > far while merging this topic to 'pu', which is stored in the > merge-fix/ mechanism so that I can reuse it while rebuilding 'pu'. > > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] merge-fix/sb/object-store-lookup > > --- > builtin/bisect--helper.c | 2 +- > builtin/branch-diff.c | 2 +- > negotiator/default.c | 3 ++- These look as if we can just use the_repository (as you did below). > commit-graph.c | 4 ++-- That is what I want to tackle next, and apparently you already did by using the repository *r in there. Thanks, Stefan
