From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2013, #05; Thu, 21) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:26:27 -0500 Message-ID: <20131122172626.GA4881@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20131122102345.GC12042@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87d2lsjs4q.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Vicent =?utf-8?B?TWFydMOt?= , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Rast X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 22 18:26:35 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VjuV0-0005sV-Oy for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:26:35 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755856Ab3KVR03 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:26:29 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:43883 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755816Ab3KVR02 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:26:28 -0500 Received: (qmail 1060 invoked by uid 102); 22 Nov 2013 17:26:28 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:26:28 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:26:27 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d2lsjs4q.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 05:52:37PM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote: > > Looks like you picked up my latest re-roll with Ramsay's fix on top. > > There wasn't a lot of review on this past round (I'm not surprised; it's > > a dauntingly large chunk to review). I outlined a few possible open > > issues in the cover letter, but I'd be happy to build those on top, > > which I think will make review of them a lot easier. > > > > Do we want to try this in 'next' post-1.8.5, or should I try to prod an > > area expert like Shawn into doing another round of review? > > Hmm, maybe I missed something, but AFAICS you (or Vicent) never acted on > or responded to my June reviews in this thread: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/228918 > > and again mentioned here, though I didn't point out all of them: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/236587/focus=236740 Sorry, I didn't respond directly to the email. Vicent did a pass for style and documentation shortly after the initial series, and then I did another pass in the most recent re-roll, adding a C fallback for the gcc builtin. I thought that covered it, but: > Granted, the way I verified this was checking whether you renamed > rlw_xor_run_bit() to something more fitting, so perhaps you just forgot > that one thing but did all the rest. I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on the name (it really does look like it is a negation, and the only caller is ewah_not). -Peff