Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] object_id part 7
- From
brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
- Date
- Mar 28, 2017, 11:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20170328111315.i6rhhy4pj6hhf4bs@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20170328073159.k3xemw6auh3iedgs@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 03:31:59AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> I read through the whole series and didn't find anything objectionable. > The pointer-arithmetic fix should perhaps graduate separately.
Junio's welcome to take that patch separately if he likes.
Show 5 quoted lines
> I suggested an additional cleanup around "linelen" in one patch. In the > name of keeping the number of re-rolls sane, I'm OK if we skip that for > now (the only reason I mentioned it at all is that you have to justify > the caveat in the commit message; with the fix, that justification can > go away).
Let's leave it as it is, assuming Junio's okay with it. I can send in a few more patches to clean that up and use skip_prefix that we can drop on top and graduate separately.
I think the justification is useful as it is, since it explains why we no longer want to check that particular value for historical reasons.
-- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204