Re: [RFC PATCH] Move SHA-1 implementation selection into a header file

From: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2017, 19:48 UTC
Message-ID: <512b2a2b-237b-1e73-5a85-1a19a796aa2b@ramsayjones.plus.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqvarafs7j.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On 15/03/17 15:57, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> writes:
> 
>> On 14/03/17 23:46, brian m. carlson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the SHA1_HEADER include is not defined in such a case, developers
>>>>> see spurious errors when using these tools.  Furthermore, while using a
>>>>> macro as the argument to #include is permitted by C11, it isn't
>>>>> permitted by C89 and C99, and there are known implementations which
>>>>> reject it.
>>>>
>>
>>> Junio, do you want to amend the commit message before you merge it?
>>
>> Yes, please! ;-)
> 
> If only you were a few hours quicker.

Oops, sorry. When I wrote that I didn't know it was already in 'next'.

[I tend not to reply to emails as soon as I read them (because it often gets me into trouble!), but wait until I've read everything in my inbox. Unfortunately, I get so much email, it can be hours later before I respond ... (I keep saying that I will unsubscribe from some mailing lists ;-) ).]

> Let me see how bad the fallout is to revert the merge to 'next' and
> merge an amended version in.

Hmm, I didn't intend to add to your workload! Is it worth the hassle? In the great scheme of things, it's not a major issue. I dunno.

> I _think_ the whole "Furthermore" sentence can go, since nobody
> complained since cef661fc ("Add support for alternate SHA1 library
> implementations.", 2005-04-21) started using the Makefile construct.

Yep.

[BTW, I haven't finished reading everything in my inbox yet, hopefully I won't get into trouble. :P ]

ATB, Ramsay Jones