From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] refactor duplicated ref_newer() to remote.c Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:45:10 -0500 Message-ID: <20090223064510.GA24517@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <7f19e98ccc330d4094ffbb55ea06c35b91da9e55.1235368324.git.jaysoffian@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Marc Branchaud , Junio C Hamano To: Jay Soffian X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 23 07:46:45 2009 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 1LbUaR-0001Fk-9b for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:46:43 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751886AbZBWGpO (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:45:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751856AbZBWGpO (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:45:14 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:59877 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751525AbZBWGpN (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:45:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 20952 invoked by uid 107); 23 Feb 2009 06:45:36 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:45:36 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:45:10 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7f19e98ccc330d4094ffbb55ea06c35b91da9e55.1235368324.git.jaysoffian@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:28:57AM -0500, Jay Soffian wrote: > ref_newer() appears to have been copied from builtin-send-pack.c to > http-push.c via cut and paste. This patch moves the function and its > helper unmark_and_free() to remote.c. > > Signed-off-by: Jay Soffian > --- > Hmm, I just noticed that the version in builtin-send-pack.c uses 1 > whereas http-push.c uses TMP_MARK as the mark argument. I used the > version from builtin-send-pack.c. I don't know if this is signfificant. I think the TMP_MARK one is probably better. At the very least, the send-pack one should be using SEEN instead of a bare '1'. But given that it is not part of the usual revision machinery, it seems like that was what TMP_MARK was designed for. -Peff