From: Stephen Boyd <bebarino@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:15:57 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] read-tree: migrate to parse-options
Message-ID: <4A443D6D.7060009@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A431F5E.6070109@viscovery.net>

Johannes Sixt wrote:
>
> If you write more than one mode of operation, the subsequent text should
> better reference them, but the current text does not do that. I think it
> is OK if you leave only the second, particularly because the first is only
> a subset of the second.

I was contemplating this change, but I left it out because the single
tree case felt special. So special that I felt the merging and the
reading were two different modes. The description section hints at the
two types of uses, but I think you want it to be more explicit? I'll
have to think about this more.

> I don't think that the bitfields of struct unpack_trees_options are cast
> in stone. IMHO it is fine to make them regular struct members, so that you
> can take their address for read_tree_options and these foo ? 1 : 0 become
> unnecessary

Thanks. I'll fix this up and resend the series.