From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] git-archive: wire up TAR format. Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:53:42 -0700 Message-ID: <7vk64derfd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <450019C3.4030001@innova-card.com> <11576347252834-git-send-email-vagabon.xyz@gmail.com> <4501D0CF.70306@lsrfire.ath.cx> <7vlkouf32i.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 09 03:53:35 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GLs2C-0003W3-Vq for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 09 Sep 2006 03:53:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751332AbWIIBxS (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 21:53:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751334AbWIIBxS (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 21:53:18 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29]:17613 "EHLO fed1rmmtao10.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751324AbWIIBxQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 21:53:16 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060909015315.FKPO18458.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 21:53:15 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id L1tG1V0051kojtg0000000 Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:53:16 -0400 To: Franck Bui-Huu , Rene Scharfe 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: Junio C Hamano writes: > Rene Scharfe writes: > >> I did not sign off this exact patch. I wrote and submitted the >> builtin-tar-tree.c part, with memory leak and all, then sent a note >> on where the leak needs to be plugged. You put it together and >> converted it to struct archiver_args. I'd very much have liked to >> see a comment stating this. Or simply just say "based on code by >> Rene" or something. The same is true for patch 3/4. >>... >> Especially I would not have signed off this invisible comment. ;) > > I take your response is a mild NAK. Just to reduce everybody's pain, why don't I fix them up and push out the 4 series in "pu" with attribution clarification and review comments from Rene in mind, so that you two can Ack them? After that they will be placed on "next". I needed to apply small tweaks on 1/4 (ANSI-C pedantic did not like empty struct initializers) and 4/4 (the updated 1/1 needed the way struct archiver is initialized and used be different from the original one) as well.