From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFC] git-pack-refs --prune Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <7vy7shr5zw.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v64fhd7ns.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 Thu Sep 21 17:23:53 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 1GQQKb-0007mk-1g for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:19:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751261AbWIUPTO (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:19:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751263AbWIUPTO (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:19:14 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:36518 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751261AbWIUPTN (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:19:13 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k8LFJ5nW030437 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:19:07 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k8LFJ4fW012015; Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:19:05 -0700 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7v64fhd7ns.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.992 required=5 tests=AWL,OSDL_HEADER_SUBJECT_BRACKETED X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.94__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.151 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Ok, so I did these and the result is a 4-patch series. Looks good to me. I would have combined 2/3, since the bulk of them is the calling conversion change, and they both add a new argument to the same function, so combining them would make just one patch that isn't even noticeably larger than either of the two originals, but that's just a small nitpick. Having callback data is clearly good, and the "flags" may end up being useful for other things in the future too (ie if we add attributes to branches, we could at some point have "hidden" and "read-only" etc flags) Linus