From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ramsay Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-pack.c: mark a file-local function static Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:50:25 +0000 Message-ID: <52AB8F31.40107@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> References: <52AA43AA.9030703@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , GIT Mailing-list To: Duy Nguyen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 13 23:50:38 2013 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 1VrbZ7-0002eA-QF for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:50:38 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753248Ab3LMWub (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:50:31 -0500 Received: from mdfmta004.mxout.tbr.inty.net ([91.221.168.45]:35591 "EHLO smtp.demon.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752082Ab3LMWua (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:50:30 -0500 Received: from mdfmta004.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mdfmta004.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52C1A0C089; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:50:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mdfmta004.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mdfmta004.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A0AA0C080; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:50:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.254.16] (unknown [80.176.147.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mdfmta004.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:50:27 +0000 (GMT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: X-MDF-HostID: 9 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 13/12/13 00:58, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Ramsay Jones > wrote: >> BTW, I have not been following these patches, but I noticed that the >> 'remove_nonexistent_ours_in_pack()' function has no callers. (There are >> two commented out callers - but they seem to have *always* been commented >> out ;-) ). So, step 5 is no longer required? :-D > > It's more of an optimization than a requirement, to avoid expensive > calculation later. Uncommenting is possible but I need to pass the > pack file name around a bit. > Ah, OK. (I should probably refrain from commenting on code I haven't read ... :-P ) ATB, Ramsay Jones