From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: t5505-remote fails on Windows Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:03:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20090319050328.GA9746@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <49C0DE23.8020809@viscovery.net> <20090319041837.GA32642@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090319044313.GA341@coredump.intra.peff.net> <76718490903182156y3b2b9d8aw708829a6ed151aa@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Sixt , Git Mailing List To: Jay Soffian X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 19 06:05:55 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 1LkARH-0001VJ-Lk for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:05:28 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752575AbZCSFDj (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:03:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752495AbZCSFDi (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:03:38 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:60907 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752113AbZCSFDi (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:03:38 -0400 Received: (qmail 29704 invoked by uid 107); 19 Mar 2009 05:03:45 -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; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:03:45 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:03:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <76718490903182156y3b2b9d8aw708829a6ed151aa@mail.gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:56:37AM -0400, Jay Soffian wrote: > > As a side note, I find this solution a little bit ugly. String lists > > should sort on their strings, not on some other random magic in the util > > field. This usage really abuses string_list a bit as a data type because > > we have no generic "list" type. > > I really don't think so. The string_list API accommodates this case > quite nicely. So why not? I think the code would be more natural as a list of structs, each with a source and dest. But C does not make it pleasant to write generic data types, so things end up stuffed into string_lists with a magic util field. So I think leaving it as a string_list is probably the most sane thing to do. -Peff