From: J.H. Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:58:24 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] GITWEB - Load Checking Message-ID: <4B21B550.1060806@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <7vk4wu6x6a.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Junio C Hamano wrote: > "J.H." 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