Re: [PATCH v14 2/4] ref-filter: make ref_array_item allocation more consistent
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 11, 2018, 23:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq37014973.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cQzWAbEVBJ8O0yKYHQ02EaGTx9CeUyF67xozeT2-FL0EA@mail.gmail.com>
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Harald Nordgren >> <haraldnordgren@gmail.com> wrote: >>> There have been no new comments for the last few days. I know Jeff >>> King will be away for the next two weeks, but should we still move >>> forward with this? The initial reactions to the idea seemed positive. >> ... >> It will be merged to next and if no people speak up (due to bugs >> observed or such) > > I would guess, however, that Harald is wondering more specifically > about the "--sort" patch he added atop Peff's patches. Disposition for > _that_ patch is not specified in the latest "What's cooking": > > * hn/sort-ls-remote (2018-04-09) 1 commit > - ls-remote: create '--sort' option > (this branch uses jk/ref-array-push.) > > "git ls-remote" learned an option to allow sorting its output based > on the refnames being shown.
Thanks all for summarizing.
I think the preliminary clean-up patches by Peff are all independently good and can be advanced, even without him being around. I haven't formed a firm opinion on the doneness of the latest round of the "--sort" thing. I usually do not explicitly write "I haven't formed an opinion" in "What's cooking" report, so please read the lack of "disposition" as such.