From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git and time Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:53:44 -0700 Message-ID: <7vy7s5j4fb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20060926233321.GA17084@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20060927002745.15344.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> <20060927033459.GA27622@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20060926234309.b16aa44e.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20060927042850.GB9460@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 27 06:53:57 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 1GSRQb-0001GV-5p for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 06:53:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965094AbWI0Exq (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:53:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965123AbWI0Exq (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:53:46 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37]:3736 "EHLO fed1rmmtao02.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965094AbWI0Exp (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:53:45 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060927045345.TSWN12581.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:53:45 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id TGti1V0071kojtg0000000 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:53:42 -0400 To: Shawn Pearce In-Reply-To: <20060927042850.GB9460@spearce.org> (Shawn Pearce's message of "Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:28:50 -0400") 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: Shawn Pearce writes: > For what its worth I keep meaning to get around to fix receive-pack.c > but I just haven't done it yet. I've been futzing around that code because I wanted to make sure we get the locking right on creation and deletion of refs. I'll try to remember when I revisit the code tomorrow.