From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15634C433E0 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 06:52:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD05C64DCE for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 06:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231410AbhA1GwV (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 01:52:21 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:41730 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229646AbhA1GwV (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 01:52:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 10015 invoked by uid 109); 28 Jan 2021 06:51:40 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 06:51:40 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 25840 invoked by uid 111); 28 Jan 2021 06:51:42 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 01:51:42 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 01:51:39 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] rerere: use strmap to store rerere directories Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:38:31PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:28:14AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > Curiously, the reference of the message points at the cover letter > of this series, and there is no mention of a message from early last > December. I think that is the author-date generated by format-patch, since that's when I originally wrote it. I generally format the messages into an mbox, load that in mutt, and then use mutt's "bounce" feature to send them, which rewrites the date header. In this case, though, I somehow accidentally hit "reply" (more astounding is that I didn't notice it as I was sending; I think I might be getting senile). > I think this is good. These "conflict IDs" are not even object > names, so it would be strange to use "struct object_id" for them > (for that matter, packfile ids are not object names, either, but I > suspect we might use object_id there). I suspected that, too, but when I checked I couldn't find any instance where we do. I might not have looked hard enough, or perhaps whoever converted the pack code had better taste than me (see the similar use of object_id in the previous patch). > If there were a patch that can readily applied ;-) Yep, see my reply. :) -Peff