From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: strbuf new API, take 2 for inclusion Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:16:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20070906171621.GA5305@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20070902224213.GB431@artemis.corp> <11890776114037-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> <20070906125811.GA32400@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20070906171502.GF8451@artemis.corp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 06 19:16:28 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ITKxv-00016j-Qz for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:16:28 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753225AbXIFRQX (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:16:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753503AbXIFRQX (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:16:23 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:4998 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753055AbXIFRQW (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:16:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 23622 invoked by uid 111); 6 Sep 2007 17:16:22 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:16:22 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:16:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070906171502.GF8451@artemis.corp> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 07:15:02PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Yes, Junio already did that remark. The reason is that it's forward > compatible: if we ever change strbuf's intitial value for some reason, > we would just have to rebuild the code. As junio disliked it (and I'm > not sure I love it either) I've used it where using the _init() function > was impractical. OK, I missed that discussion. Thanks for the explanation. -Peff