Re: [PATCH 1/6] GITWEB - Load Checking
- From
J.H. <warthog9@kernel.org>
- Date
- Dec 11, 2009, 02:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4B21B550.1060806@kernel.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vk4wu6x6a.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> "J.H." <warthog9@kernel.org> writes: > >> It was intended to be the most minimal possible, mainly get in, get >> out. Also not sure the die_error existed in gitweb when this was >> originally written. Probably worth switching to it now since it's >> there either way, and I don't think using it would add enough overhead >> to matter. > > Thanks; all sounded a reasonable response to the review. Are you > re-rolling the series anytime soon (I am asking because then I'd rather > not to queue this round especially because I didn't see 5/6).
I'll probably have some changes up and about tomorrow, and it's a little troubling that 5/6 didn't come through for you
6 at least made it to marc.info: http://marc.info/?l=git&m=126048884825985&w=2
and 5 seems to have been eaten by a grue somewhere. It was a *big* patch mainly because all the caching flips over in a single go. If you want I can privately bounce 5 & 6 to you so you have a complete tree right now?
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley