On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> This makes local variable "int i;" in this function unused and gets
> compiler warning.
Apologies for leaving that detritus -- I saw you added a 'SQUASH??' commit
to deal with it, which LGTM.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> ... to whi
Hi,
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Alex Vandiver writes:
>
> > diff --git a/fsmonitor.c b/fsmonitor.c
> > index 4ea44dcc6..417759224 100644
> > --- a/fsmonitor.c
> > +++ b/fsmonitor.c
> > @@ -49,20 +49,7 @@ int read_fsmonitor_extension(struct index_state *istate,
> > const void *
Alex Vandiver writes:
> diff --git a/fsmonitor.c b/fsmonitor.c
> index 4ea44dcc6..417759224 100644
> --- a/fsmonitor.c
> +++ b/fsmonitor.c
> @@ -49,20 +49,7 @@ int read_fsmonitor_extension(struct index_state *istate,
> const void *data,
> ewah_free(fsmonitor_dirty);
>
If the fsmonitor extension is used in conjunction with the split index
extension, the set of entries in the index when it is first loaded is
only a subset of the real index. This leads to only the non-"base"
index being marked as CE_FSMONITOR_VALID.
Delay the expansion of the ewah bitmap until af
4 matches
Mail list logo