On December 17, 2018 5:57:50 PM EST, "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" 
<ava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On Mon, Dec 17 2018, David Turner wrote:
>
>> Overall, I like this. One nit:
>
>Thanks for the review!
>
>> On December 17, 2018 5:16:25 PM EST, "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason"
><ava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>--- a/upload-pack.c
>>>+++ b/upload-pack.c
>>>@@ -54,7 +54,8 @@ static int no_progress, daemon_mode;
>>> #define ALLOW_REACHABLE_SHA1        02
>>>/* Allow request of any sha1. Implies ALLOW_TIP_SHA1 and
>>>ALLOW_REACHABLE_SHA1. */
>>> #define ALLOW_ANY_SHA1      07
>>>-static unsigned int allow_unadvertised_object_request;
>>>+static unsigned int allow_unadvertised_object_request = (
>>>+    ALLOW_TIP_SHA1 | ALLOW_REACHABLE_SHA1 | ALLOW_ANY_SHA1);
>>
>> ALLOW_ANY_SHA1 already includes the other two.
>
>FWIW (and maybe I made the wrong call, and have no preference realy) I
>opted for this as part of "this change doesn't do any of the hard work
>of extracting the now-dead ALLOW_[...]*.
>
>I.e. the diff context I had doesn't show all the ALLOW_* values, and
>with the context given it might be easier for reviewers to look no
>further than "this is what you'd get before if all
>uploadpack.allow.*SHA1InWant was true".

The context I quoted said /* Allow request of any sha1. Implies ALLOW_TIP_SHA1 
and
ALLOW_REACHABLE_SHA1. */

But up to you (or Junio).
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Reply via email to