From: J.H. Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:07:50 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] GITWEB - Load Checking Message-ID: <4B21B786.3090000@eaglescrag.net> In-Reply-To: <4B21B550.1060806@kernel.org> J.H. wrote: > 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? Not to reply to myself but this might also be helpful: http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/warthog9/gitweb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/gitweb-ml-v2 - John 'Warthog9' Hawley