From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:39:26 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] gitweb: refactor If-Modified-Since handling Message-ID: <7vsjgvnr4x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20120326173646.GA6524@odin.tremily.us> "W. Trevor King" writes: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:12:36AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... > Only passing in the epoch. We could reduce computation at the expense > of complication by passing in both the epoch and a formatted time > string, but after Jakub's suggestions, I felt like a simpler interface > was the better approach. I don't feel particularly committed to > either way, so just tell me which you'd like best ;). The existing codepath already had the call to parse_date() nearby and that was the only reason I made the suggestion. The caller in the snapshot codepath would need to call parse_date() much earlier and it would have to be conditional to the availability of %co, so the simpler interface would probably be overall win. >> Missing " &&" at the end (same in 3/3). > > Oops. I wonder why my tests still passed :p. Will fix in v5. The test will pass if there is no breakage. The offence of missing " &&" after your "grep 200" is that it will let the test pass even if you did not have "200" in the output, failing to catch future breakage.