From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
To: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>, git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>, "Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] object_id part 2
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 01:33:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55BEA8E4.7040902@alum.mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1434233803-422442-1-git-send-email-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
On 06/14/2015 12:16 AM, brian m. carlson wrote:
> This is another series of conversions to struct object_id.
>
> This series converts more of the refs code and struct object to use
> struct object_id. It introduces an additional helper function,
> has_object_file, which is the equivalent of has_sha1_file. The name was
> chosen to be slightly more logical than has_oid_file, although it can be
> changed if desired.
>
> The next-to-last patch in this series is the conversion of struct object
> to use struct object_id. This is a necessarily large patch because of
> the large number of places this code is used. That patch will most
> likely be too large to make it through to the list, so this series is
> available in the object-id-part2 branch from:
FWIW I've skimmed patches 01-08 inclusive and nothing jumped out at me.
Brian, what was your experience when writing these patches? Did they
tend to work as soon as they compiled without errors (i.e., not super
risky) or did you often have test suite failures that you had to go back
and fix (i.e., risky)? If the latter, what kinds of code patterns tended
to be problematic? Your answers might help reviewers decide how much
diligence is needed when reviewing these patches and what kind of
changes to inspect extra carefully. Because doing a thorough review of
all of the patches would be quite a bit of work.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-02 23:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-13 22:16 [PATCH v2 00/10] object_id part 2 brian m. carlson
2015-06-13 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] refs: convert some internal functions to use object_id brian m. carlson
2015-06-13 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] sha1_file: introduce has_object_file helper brian m. carlson
2015-06-13 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] Convert struct ref to use object_id brian m. carlson
2015-06-15 22:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-06-13 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] add_sought_entry_mem: convert to struct object_id brian m. carlson
2015-06-13 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] parse_fetch: convert to use " brian m. carlson
2015-06-13 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] get_remote_heads: convert to " brian m. carlson
2015-06-13 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] push_refs_with_export: " brian m. carlson
2015-06-13 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] ref_newer: convert to use " brian m. carlson
2015-06-13 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] remote: convert functions to " brian m. carlson
2015-08-02 23:33 ` Michael Haggerty [this message]
2015-08-03 23:45 ` [PATCH v2 00/10] object_id part 2 brian m. carlson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55BEA8E4.7040902@alum.mit.edu \
--to=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=sandals@crustytoothpaste.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).