From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [WIP Patch 00/12] Refactoring the http API Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:30:12 -0800 Message-ID: <7v8wp9yq23.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20090118074911.GB30228@glandium.org> <1232265877-3649-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de To: Mike Hommey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 18 09:31:48 2009 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 1LOT4M-0007RI-2B for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:31:46 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763734AbZARIaV (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:30:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763512AbZARIaV (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:30:21 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:44298 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763344AbZARIaU (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:30:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26DE91712; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:30:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EDE691711; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:30:14 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1232265877-3649-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> (Mike Hommey's message of "Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:04:25 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3D43765A-E53A-11DD-BD02-5720C92D7133-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Mike Hommey writes: > As it is work in progress, some error handling might have regressions, but > the original error handling is not necessarily much better. > > Also note I only rebased my one-year-old work on current master, and haven't > actually tested it, though, as the code hasn't changed much, I guess it > should be fine. > ... > 6 files changed, 162 insertions(+), 304 deletions(-) Thanks. This looks like a very nice code reduction, and the first few patches looked obviously correct, too ;-) But I am puzzled by what you mean by "haven't actually tested it". Do you mean you do not use http transport very much yourself, or even when you do you do not use a version of git with these patches applied?