On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:36:20PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > We could of course have a .def member in the struct rev_info, and use > > the one passed to setup_revisions then if it's still NULL, but it > > doesn't really makes sense to me, and I don't really see a problem with > > saying at init time that you'll default to "HEAD". Though if you really > > dislike it that much, I squash a patch that does that on top of it. > > Well, it was not liking or disliking. Although I thought "default" that > sets a value to the default after the parser finds that the user did not > give anything (the approach you described in the above quoted paragraph) > is a natural implementation, probably more so than what you did, I do not > have strong preference either way. Well Okay, I'll let others comment, and will implement this way if more are in favor of it than against then :) > >> Applying this to 'master' and then merging 'pu' shows that there are a few > >> topics that are cooking that would conflict with this change. Merging > >> 'next' seems to go cleanly (I haven't checked the result), so it is not > >> too bad for me to carrry this at this moment, if we were not this close to > >> the rc freeze. I dunno. > > > > Well I can wait longer, I'd just like to see it merged in a not too > > far future, because I have to check for new places that would need > > conversions at each reabase :) > > Yeah, that burden can be shifted to me, in other words ;-) Heh, fair enough. Well, I can wait a bit longer :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpKpZjqNkudt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
