From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Change "refs/" references to symbolic constants Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:59:38 -0700 Message-ID: <7v1wcdmm7p.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <200709291359.59147.andyparkins@gmail.com> <200710012141.44459.andyparkins@gmail.com> <20071002011659.GA7938@coredump.intra.peff.net> <200710020941.05288.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King To: Andy Parkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 02 20:00:03 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Icm2H-0005qP-0y for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:59:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753973AbXJBR7p (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:59:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753951AbXJBR7p (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:59:45 -0400 Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]:52052 "EHLO rune.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753941AbXJBR7o (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:59:44 -0400 Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEFBD1400AB; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:00:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3845113FE9D; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:00:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200710020941.05288.andyparkins@gmail.com> (Andy Parkins's message of "Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:41:03 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Andy Parkins writes: > I noticed a couple of places where memcmp() has been used where prefixcmp() > would work fine. I'm tempted to change them too - what do you think? > Perhaps a separate patch? In general, probably it is preferable to have a separate "preliminary patch" to normalize the existing code without using the new infrastructure (i.e. REF_* macros), and then to have the main patch. That way would make the main patch more about mechanical conversion, which would be easier to verify independently.