From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] send-pack: cluster ref status reporting Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:36:05 -0800 Message-ID: <7vwsscgie2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20071120111317.GA4120@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20071120111801.GA7814@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v1wakhxh4.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071121073332.GA10244@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alex Riesen , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 21 08:36:33 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 1Iuk8M-00075Q-TJ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:36:31 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755640AbXKUHgN (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:36:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755724AbXKUHgM (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:36:12 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:32917 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755586AbXKUHgL (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:36:11 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B4BA2EF; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:36:32 -0500 (EST) 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 sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7ED96497; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:36:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071121073332.GA10244@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:33:32 -0500") 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: Jeff King writes: > Gah, sorry. This crept in because I based it on the previous, broken > version of the other patch series which had the same problem (and > obviously this chunk is just a pure code move + reindent). > > But pretend like it was competently prepared and give your comments on > the idea. ;) Heh, at least I've privately queued it at the tip of jk/send-pack for review but not merged it to 'next' yet, after fixing it up (the last round I also fixed up so that was partly why I noticed -- the patch did not apply). The idea feels sound, and code under cursory look was fine.