From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:08:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] wt-status.c: Initialise variable to suppress msvc warning
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?).