From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fetch-pack: fix object_id of exact sha1 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:50:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20160304005000.GA1074@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1456798376-29904-1-git-send-email-gabrielfrancosouza@gmail.com> <20160301045453.GB19272@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Gabriel Souza Franco X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 04 01:50:12 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 1abdwZ-00086i-HE for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2016 01:50:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756888AbcCDAuE (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:50:04 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:54520 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756793AbcCDAuE (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:50:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 27317 invoked by uid 102); 4 Mar 2016 00:50:03 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:50:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 11385 invoked by uid 107); 4 Mar 2016 00:50:15 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:50:15 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:50:00 -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 Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:35:54PM -0300, Gabriel Souza Franco wrote: > > The code looks good to me. Do we need documentation or test updates? > > > > Here's a test that can be squashed in. For documentation, it looks like > > we don't cover the " " form at all. That's maybe OK, as it's > > mostly for internal use by remote-http (though fetch-pack _is_ plumbing, > > so perhaps some other remote-* could make use of it). But perhaps we > > should document that "" should work. > > Thanks for providing a test, I hadn't looked up those yet. For > documentation, should > it be on the same patch or a new one? Also, I'm not exactly sure how > to word that ... > can also contain a hash instead of a ref. I think it make sense as part of the same patch. I guess you could still call the argument "" even though it takes more now, and just explain the new feature in the appropriate section. I can't think of a better word to use (somehow "" feels too broad, and the primary use would still be a list of refs). -Peff