From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] revision: remove definition of unused 'add_object' function Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:36:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20141019013646.GA17908@peff.net> References: <5442DD4C.9050908@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , GIT Mailing-list To: Ramsay Jones X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Oct 19 03:37:04 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XffQd-0002Ny-UM for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 03:37:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751617AbaJSBgt (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:36:49 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:59880 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751593AbaJSBgt (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:36:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 30923 invoked by uid 102); 19 Oct 2014 01:36:49 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:36:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 18019 invoked by uid 107); 19 Oct 2014 01:36:49 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:36:49 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:36:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5442DD4C.9050908@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:36:12PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: > I noticed that your 'jk/prune-mtime' branch removes the last caller > of the add_object() function; specifically commit 5f78a431a > ("reachable: use traverse_commit_list instead of custom walk", 15-10-2014). Thanks. I usually rely on the compiler to catch any static instances that I missed, but of course this one is extern. Did you use an automated tool for this (I know you often catch "X has no declaration; should it be static?" with clang, but does clang catch this, too?). > If you need to re-roll those patches, could you please squash this > patch into the above commit. (unless you have plans to add some new > callers, of course! ;-) ). Nope, I just didn't notice that I dropped the last caller. I don't think we need another re-roll (fingers crossed), but I'd be happy to have this on top. -Peff