David Turner writes:
> Is there some standard workflow here? I just rebased your version of
> my series (bd412fa) on top of the prior commit in pu (9db66d9), fixing
> the few conflicts. (I think there is in general something I'm missing
> about how to maintain a patch set under the git.git work
On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 16:51 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> > ...
> > You can of course standardize on signed int, but because this is a
> > collection of flag bits, there is no reason not to choose unsigned.
> >
> > I _think_ I can fix everything up before pushing out,
Junio C Hamano writes:
> ...
> You can of course standardize on signed int, but because this is a
> collection of flag bits, there is no reason not to choose unsigned.
>
> I _think_ I can fix everything up before pushing out, so please
> check what will appear on 'pu' before rerolling.
I managed
David Turner writes:
> Refactor resolve_ref_1 in terms of a new function read_raw_ref, which
> is responsible for reading ref data from the ref storage.
>
> Later, we will make read_raw_ref a pluggable backend function, and make
> resolve_ref_unsafe common.
>
> Testing done: Hacked in code to run
Refactor resolve_ref_1 in terms of a new function read_raw_ref, which
is responsible for reading ref data from the ref storage.
Later, we will make read_raw_ref a pluggable backend function, and make
resolve_ref_unsafe common.
Testing done: Hacked in code to run both old and new version of
resolv
5 matches
Mail list logo
