Hi, On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > Umm. This "16" is a little bit too hardcoded for my liking. I mean, it > is not even obvious from _this_ hunk why "16" should be correct. Any solutions for this? Would a comment like "skip 'opaquelocktoken:' prefix of length 16" be sufficient? Or maybe in the commit message? I considered a set of strbuf functions, like for the remote object url (get_remote_object_url and append_remote_object_url), but I thought it was a little overkill, since this is one of the only instances that I can think of where including 'opaquelocktoken:' is unwanted. > Besides, I have to wonder where request->lock->token is set, and if that > would not be the better place to fix the issue? Are you suggesting perhaps that we revert commit 753bc91? Or perhaps create another way to access lock tokens, say, get_lock_token(int prepend_scheme)? -- Cheers, Ray Chuan -- 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
