On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:14:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> This change is about dropping the need for ".hash", and I think a
> faithful, boring and mechanical conversion that tries to preserve
> the intent of the original author would be more appropriate. It is
> entirely possible that some
"brian m. carlson" writes:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:27:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> ...
>> After all, the original written by a human said E2[E3].hash (or
>> array->sha1[i]) because to the human's mind, E2 is a series of
>> things that can be indexed with an int E3, and even though
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:27:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" writes:
>
> > Convert the callers to pass struct object_id by changing the function
> > declaration and definition and applying the following semantic patch:
> >
> > @@
> > expression E1, E2, E3;
> > @@
> > - sha
"brian m. carlson" writes:
> Convert the callers to pass struct object_id by changing the function
> declaration and definition and applying the following semantic patch:
>
> @@
> expression E1, E2, E3;
> @@
> - sha1_array_append(E1, E2[E3].hash)
> + sha1_array_append(E1, E2 + E3)
>
> @@
> expres
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 04:01:38PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> diff --git a/transport.c b/transport.c
> index 8a90b0c29b..e492757726 100644
> --- a/transport.c
> +++ b/transport.c
> @@ -1027,7 +1027,8 @@ int transport_push(struct transport *transport,
>
> for (; ref; r
Convert the callers to pass struct object_id by changing the function
declaration and definition and applying the following semantic patch:
@@
expression E1, E2, E3;
@@
- sha1_array_append(E1, E2[E3].hash)
+ sha1_array_append(E1, E2 + E3)
@@
expression E1, E2;
@@
- sha1_array_append(E1, E2.hash)
6 matches
Mail list logo