From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/11] ref-filter: use string_list_split over strbuf_split Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:26:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20160217222607.GA25424@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1455732379-22479-1-git-send-email-Karthik.188@gmail.com> <1455732379-22479-2-git-send-email-Karthik.188@gmail.com> <20160217221430.GA24899@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Eric Sunshine , Karthik Nayak , Git List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 17 23:26:18 2016 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 1aWAY3-00009J-8e for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:26:15 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965650AbcBQW0L (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:26:11 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:44459 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965454AbcBQW0K (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:26:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 14007 invoked by uid 102); 17 Feb 2016 22:26:10 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:26:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 13124 invoked by uid 107); 17 Feb 2016 22:26:16 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:26:16 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:26:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:19:39PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > So, is everybody happy with this round? > > With another series on top for the "conditional" stuff, I guess we > are ready to do the formatting for "git branch --list", which would > be a big step forward. I have not looked with nearly as close an eye as Eric, but I did not see anything objectionable (and I trust the reviews that have led us up to v6 in the first place). Thanks, Karthik, for your continued work on this (and to reviewers, of course :) ). -Peff