Re: [PATCH 14/14] wt-status.c: Initialise variable to suppress msvc warning
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Dec 9, 2010, 19:08 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vmxoeg3wp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <4D011D30.4070405@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Junio, could you please drop patches 5-14 from the series; the first four patches > are the important ones and I'd rather they didn't get held up. Thanks!
Have these four patches been Acked by interested parties?
I think I saw 1/N and 2/N acked by Erik and 4/N acked by SSchuberth and J6t, but any words on 3/N?
Not that I deeply care nor have environment to test changes to [3/N], but I am wondering if these need conditional definition to futureproof (e.g. what happens when the header you are using the definition _I64_MIN from, or some other headers, started defining these constats?).