From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Larry D'Anna Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Refactoring: remove duplicated code from transport.c and builtin-send-pack.c Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:30:41 -0500 Message-ID: <20100215173041.GA8215@cthulhu> References: <1266182863-5048-1-git-send-email-michael.lukashov@gmail.com> <20100215052853.GJ3336@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v7hqfknwz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v635zj8jr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Michael Lukashov , Jeff King , Daniel Barkalow , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 15 18:30:51 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nh4mX-0005AN-Ge for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:30:49 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755521Ab0BORan (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:30:43 -0500 Received: from cthulhu.elder-gods.org ([140.239.99.253]:33639 "EHLO cthulhu.elder-gods.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754972Ab0BORam (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:30:42 -0500 Received: by cthulhu.elder-gods.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 13194822226; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:30:42 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v635zj8jr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Weird: I only got the Cc for this, git@vger.kernel.org didnt' sent it to me. It doesn't seem to be on gmane either. * Junio C Hamano (gitster@pobox.com) [100215 01:51]: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > Jeff King writes: > > > >>> builtin-send-pack.c | 89 ++++++++++++++---------- > >>> send-pack.h | 20 +++++ > >>> transport.c | 196 --------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> I think this is backwards. The versions in send-pack were there first, > >> and then were ported to transport.c so that other transports could > >> benefit from them. And that is where they should ultimately be. > > > > Also the names of these functions probably need to be made more specific > > so that people not so familiar with the transport code can tell that they > > are from "transport" family. The names didn't matter much while they were > > file scope static, but this series changes that. > > Ah, one more thing. I think this patch touches somewhat overlapping areas > the ld/push-porcelain topic in 'pu' touches. > > I think Peff's "backwards" observation is correct (and Daniel can > elaborate if he wants). Once the direction is set on that point, you and > Larry probably would need to coordinate to decide how to proceed. My gut > feeling without actually looking at the conflicts is that applying your > code consolidation first and then doing the "porcelain" rework on top > might be a cleaner approach, but you two are in better position to decide > on the order, as these are your codes that will be conflicting with each > other. That sounds good to me. I'll rebase the porcelain stuff off the next version of Michael's series. --larry