From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Provide git_config with a callback-data parameter Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 02:02:45 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <7vk5hwn0tp.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 15 03:03:39 2008 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 1JwRsg-0001LG-Et for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 15 May 2008 03:03:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751817AbYEOBCq (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 21:02:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751647AbYEOBCq (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 21:02:46 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:55087 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751688AbYEOBCp (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 21:02:45 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 May 2008 01:02:43 -0000 Received: from R2b68.r.pppool.de (EHLO racer.local) [89.54.43.104] by mail.gmx.net (mp047) with SMTP; 15 May 2008 03:02:43 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/MItRobmHMXv2n7WoWlSCbl1EDo0tZ0QO5Bk8xYk oWulPxFJMtCckn X-X-Sender: gene099@racer In-Reply-To: <7vk5hwn0tp.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Wed, 14 May 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > git_config() only had a function parameter, but no callback data > > parameter. This assumes that all callback functions only modify > > global variables. > > > > With this patch, every callback gets a void * parameter, and it is hoped > > that this will help the libification effort. > > Great, as this has also been a pet-peeve of mine for quite some time. > > Except the patch has quite a many rejects X-<. Did you try to apply it to "next"? I thought I based it on "next"... I will prepare three patches tomorrow: for "next", "master" and "maint" respectively (even if I think that "maint" should not take it; it is no real fix). Ciao, Dscho