From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:44:59 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] Hierarchical reference cache (once again)
Message-ID: <20120412064459.GD27369@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1334035827-20331-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu>

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:30:12AM +0200, mhagger@alum.mit.edu wrote:

> Michael Haggerty (15):
>   refs.c: reorder definitions more logically
>   refs: manage current_ref within do_one_ref()
>   do_for_each_ref_in_array(): new function
>   do_for_each_ref_in_arrays(): new function
>   repack_without_ref(): reimplement using do_for_each_ref_in_array()
>   names_conflict(): new function, extracted from is_refname_available()
>   names_conflict(): simplify implementation
>   is_refname_available(): reimplement using do_for_each_ref_in_array()
>   free_ref_entry(): new function
>   check_refname_component(): return 0 for zero-length components
>   struct ref_entry: nest the value part in a union
>   refs.c: rename ref_array -> ref_dir
>   sort_ref_dir(): simplify logic
>   refs: store references hierarchically
>   do_for_each_ref(): only iterate over the subtree that was requested

I read through the whole series and didn't find anything noticeably
wrong.  Overall, it was quite readable for such a large series. Thanks
for breaking it up as you did.

-Peff