Hi,
I put off reviewing this patch, thinking that it would appear in a
re-roll, then never came back to it. :-(
On 04/23/2017 06:44 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> I find this implementation confusing:
>>
>> * `if (iter->worktree_dir_it
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> I find this implementation confusing:
>
> * `if (iter->worktree_dir_iterator)` sounds like it should mean
> that we are iterating over worktree references but it really means
> that we are iterating over the common references
On 04/19/2017 01:01 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> refs/bisect is unfortunately per-worktree, so we need to look in
> per-worktree logs/refs/bisect in addition to per-repo logs/refs. The
> current iterator only goes through per-repo logs/refs.
>
> Ideally we should have something like merge_ref
refs/bisect is unfortunately per-worktree, so we need to look in
per-worktree logs/refs/bisect in addition to per-repo logs/refs. The
current iterator only goes through per-repo logs/refs.
Ideally we should have something like merge_ref_iterator_begin (and
maybe with a predicate), but for dir_iter
4 matches
Mail list logo
