From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 09:23:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] worktree lock/unlock
Message-ID: <CACsJy8BTHg8bkZqpaJ5XtZBxK5ZR4kJu+oNwd8sRULBeEdDW=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cQVaMOKtbUCWdZqYDO8ZUZkVcSJH14S=2xrZiDVJ59Xdg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This should address all of Eric's comments (thanks!). An extra change
>> I made is free_worktrees() at the end of {,un}lock_worktree() to avoid
>> leaking. This series depends on nd/worktree-cleanup-post-head-protection.
>
> Thanks, this addresses all my comments from the previous round (aside
> from the suggestion to add a 'locked' field to 'struct worktree' and
> populate it automatically, which you elected to defer for the
> present).

If there's another re-roll (likely so), I'm tempted to do that too as
it's quite clear now that "locked" belongs in struct worktree.
-- 
Duy