Junio C Hamano wrote:
>"Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> Separating it causes two things:
>> a. The patches to become dependent on each other in the timeline.
>> b. More (redundant) work, because some parts that need to be rewritten, get
>> deleted by the following patch(es).
>These are actually desirable properties from reviewability point of view.
Ok, I'll look into the splitup.
>>> - I see you have a call to vsyslog, which is the first user of the
>>> function. How portable is it (the patch coming from you, I know
>>> Solaris would have it, and recent 4BSD also would, but what about the
>>> others)?
>> Cygwin has it, Solaris does, Linux does, MacOSX does.
>> AIX and HPUX don't, perhaps.
>> I'll see what I can do to avoid it, yet simplify the code.
>That's one of the reasons why I asked you to split it to three patches, so
>that the syslog change can potentially be independently replaced with a
>better alternative.
Well, I've already found an alternative, and looks a lot more appealing
than the buffer-juggling code of before.
>In any case, it is already late in the rc cycle; I'd like to apply your
>earlier "In SysV, signal(SIGCHLD) need to be rearmed" patch and nothing
>else for now. The clean-up is very attractive but can be done post 1.6.0.
No problem. That's the reason I chipped that first patch off; it's a
direct bugfix. And BTW, don't mistake me for a "Solaris guy". I've
been using Linux almost exclusively since 1991. My SunOS/Solaris knowledge
has been fading steadily ever since. It's just that I had to install
git-daemon on someone else's Solaris box just recently.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
"And now for something *completely* different!"
--
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
