Re: [PATCH 1/6] GITWEB - Load Checking

["J.H." <warthog9@kernel.org>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "J.H." <warthog9@kernel.org> writes:
> 
>> It was intended to be the most minimal possible, mainly get in, get
>> out. Also not sure the die_error existed in gitweb when this was
>> originally written.  Probably worth switching to it now since it's
>> there either way, and I don't think using it would add enough overhead
>> to matter.
> 
> Thanks; all sounded a reasonable response to the review.  Are you
> re-rolling the series anytime soon (I am asking because then I'd rather
> not to queue this round especially because I didn't see 5/6).

I'll probably have some changes up and about tomorrow, and it's a little 
troubling that 5/6 didn't come through for you

6 at least made it to marc.info: 
http://marc.info/?l=git&m=126048884825985&w=2

and 5 seems to have been eaten by a grue somewhere.  It was a *big* 
patch mainly because all the caching flips over in a single go.  If you 
want I can privately bounce 5 & 6 to you so you have a complete tree 
right now?

- John 'Warthog9' Hawley