Re: [PATCH RESEND] Fix a bunch of pointer declarations (codestyle)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2009, 10:14 UTC
Message-ID: <7vprh64ych.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <94a0d4530902250202rb12a4e7leb9856258dafc488@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Sorry, but I cannot take this as is.
>>
>> These trivial clean-ups are welcome either as part of a preparatory
>> clean-up before starting to work in the area of code you are touching, or
>> as a standalone patch to files that nobody is currently working on.
>>
>> There is a huge overlap between "git diff --name-only master..pu" and the
>> above list, so it is impossible for me to take the patch and I cannot
>> afford the time to sift through gems out of stones.
>
>  It's understandable. Would there be a better time to send this patch?
> After 1.6.2, or in a different form?

I've taken your smaller patches that touched only parts that nobody is touching between 'master' and 'pu'. Please take that as a hint ;-)

As a first order approximation, come up with the subset of your patch that applies cleanly to 'master', and make sure that the same patch applies cleanly to 'pu'. Remove patches to paths that have any hunk that does not apply and go back to 'master' to repeat the exercise.

That will cover a lot of existing breakages in files that nobody else is working on.

For example, Jay has been hyperactive around anything "remote" for the past several days. If you have clean-ups in the paths he touches in his series (still in flight), you may want to coordinate with him so that he can include your patches in the early part of his series. Or you wait until his series starts to settle down (meaning, merged to 'next'). This applies to anybody else's topic.