From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Change "refs/" references to symbolic constants Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:58:01 -0400 Message-ID: <20071002155800.GA6828@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <200709291359.59147.andyparkins@gmail.com> <200710012141.44459.andyparkins@gmail.com> <20071002011659.GA7938@coredump.intra.peff.net> <200710020941.05288.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Parkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 02 17:58:18 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ick8U-0004fr-P2 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:58:15 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751152AbXJBP6G (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:58:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752170AbXJBP6F (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:58:05 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:2157 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750843AbXJBP6E (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:58:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 28105 invoked by uid 111); 2 Oct 2007 15:58:02 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:58:02 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:58:01 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200710020941.05288.andyparkins@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:41:03AM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote: > Excellent! Well done. I spent a couple of hours last night going through > every changed line and have spotted the TAGS mistake but didn't spot the > STRLEN being wrong. Amazing how easy it is to become blind to these things. > There were a couple of errors in "/" placement too, but I don't think they > were causing any trouble, just doubled up "/" characters. I wonder if you could check the patch mechanically (i.e., write a script to confirm that '5' got replaced by tokens equal to '5'), though that might require some tricky parsing of C. If you a post an updated version, I will try to read through it carefully, as two eyes are better than one (er, four eyes, I guess). > I noticed a couple of places where memcmp() has been used where prefixcmp() > would work fine. I'm tempted to change them too - what do you think? > Perhaps a separate patch? When in doubt, I would suggest a separate patch, as it makes the review easier. > I'm happy to do prepare a patch against any revision, I was really > waiting for feedback from Junio as to how he'd like to manage it. > Last time I submitted this patch he (quite correctly) asked that I > delay until after the next point release; of course I promptly found > other things to do and never resubmitted :-) Yes, you should definitely listen to Junio on such issues, and not me. :) -Peff