On Friday, September 7, 2018 3:31:55 PM MST you wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
> The patch is mostly for illustration of the idea. > > The result seems to compile and pass the test suite, but I haven't > carefully thought about what else I may be breaking with this > mechanical change. For example, I noticed that both of the old > callsites of wt_status_get_state() have free() of a few fiedls in > the structure, and I kept the code as close to the original, but I > suspect they should not be freed there in the functions in the > "print" phase, but rather the caller of the "collect" and "print" > should be made responsible for deciding when to dispose the entire > wt_status (and wt_status_state as part of it). This illustration > patch does not address that kind of details (yet). If we use this as a basis of a follow on patch, how do I handle credit. You obviously wrote this patch and I did not. So how is the mechanics of that normally done? Thanks for the patch I will work with it. sps
