Hi Daniel, Daniel Shahaf writes: > > That patch is still an RFC, and it's unlikely to be approved soon I > > think. If I were able to send a series, it would roughly look like > > this: > > 1. Create parse_dumpstream3 to include the logic for checking equality > > in version. > > 2. Note the lack of flexibility in 1, and create a new struct (the > > other patch). > > 3. Modify parse_dumpstream3 to use the new struct, and move out the > > logic for checking the version into a fresh callback. > > > > > Note: it's acceptable to post patches that depend on previous patches. > > > (So you could write this patch in terms of parse_fns3_t directly.) > > So we first create parse_dumpstream3() and then fix it a second later? > I'd rather just revv the parse_fns3_t API (with "the other patch") and > then touch parse_dumpstream3() once. Does that make sense to you?
Okay, got it. I'll post a series soon. -- Ram
