From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/7] imap-send: use separate read and write fds Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:34:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20091003203448.GA9058@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1254530385-2824-1-git-send-email-kusmabite@gmail.com> <20091003094049.GA17873@coredump.intra.peff.net> <40aa078e0910031144r735a6fdq25efc1e57a1d4c33@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: msysgit@googlegroups.com, git@vger.kernel.org To: Erik Faye-Lund X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Oct 03 22:36:36 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MuBLI-0006U4-5C for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:36:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756120AbZJCUf2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:35:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753875AbZJCUf2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:35:28 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:56431 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751870AbZJCUf2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:35:28 -0400 Received: (qmail 6241 invoked by uid 107); 3 Oct 2009 20:38:16 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:38:16 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:34:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40aa078e0910031144r735a6fdq25efc1e57a1d4c33@mail.gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:44:50AM -0700, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > Yeah, this is about Windows portability. > > I'll add something like "This is a patch that enables us to use the > run-command API, which is supported on Windows." to the commit-message > in the next round. Is that enough? Yeah, that would be fine. I was just left scratching my head wondering what subtle portability difference the two descriptors could have. But if it really is just a cleanup for the next patch, that's OK; just say so. -Peff