From: Dana How <danahow@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 04:43:53 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] git-repack --max-pack-size: add new file statics
Message-ID: <56b7f5510704302143i79aef70dg95ffa23c3138663a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vzm4p89op.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 4/30/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Dana How <danahow@gmail.com> writes:
> > This adds "pack_size_limit", which will contain the limit
> > specified by --max-pack-size, "written_list", the actual
> > list of objects written to the current pack, and "nr_written",
> > the number of objects in written_list.
> > ---
> >  builtin-pack-objects.c |    4 +++-
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin-pack-objects.c b/builtin-pack-objects.c
> > --- a/builtin-pack-objects.c
> > +++ b/builtin-pack-objects.c
> > @@ -52,7 +52,8 @@ struct object_entry {
> > -static uint32_t nr_objects, nr_alloc, nr_result;
> > +static struct object_entry **written_list;
> > +static uint32_t nr_objects, nr_alloc, nr_result, nr_written;
> > @@ -64,6 +65,7 @@ static char tmpname[PATH_MAX];
> > +static uint32_t pack_size_limit;
>
> This by itself does not seem to do anything (no logic, no
> command line option parsing, nothing).  Why is this a separate
> patch?

Remember this all started with me submitting
one monolithic patch which attracted some complaints.
After that,  I broke the changes into patchsets
with 3 kinds of patches:
(a) Changes (addtitions) to data structures and declarations;
(b) Code restructuring and added forward function declarations
     adding _no_ functionality;
(c) Added functionality, (almost) one function at a time.

So 1/8 is the only member of group (a).
Previously there were more changes in (a).

I'm working on another change/feature. Based on your email,
I will merge groups (a) and (b) in future patchsets.

Thanks,
-- 
Dana L. How  danahow@gmail.com  +1 650 804 5991 cell