On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:58:09PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 03:57:39PM -0700, David Aguilar wrote:
>
> > > This checks all .h files in the top directory. Would it be better
> > > to check all files in LIB_H instead? Or even all .h files in the
> > > tree (using "git ls-f
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 03:57:39PM -0700, David Aguilar wrote:
> > This checks all .h files in the top directory. Would it be better
> > to check all files in LIB_H instead? Or even all .h files in the
> > tree (using "git ls-files '*.h'")? The latter might be difficult
> > because some of the
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 11:20:32PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 06.09.2014 um 21:20 schrieb David Aguilar:
> >This allows us to ensure that each header can be included
> >individually without needing to include other headers first.
>
> Sounds like a good objective.
>
> >Signed-off-by: David Ag
Am 06.09.2014 um 21:20 schrieb David Aguilar:
This allows us to ensure that each header can be included
individually without needing to include other headers first.
Sounds like a good objective.
Signed-off-by: David Aguilar
---
This patch demonstrates how to verify PATCH 2/2.
Makefile
This allows us to ensure that each header can be included
individually without needing to include other headers first.
Signed-off-by: David Aguilar
---
This patch demonstrates how to verify PATCH 2/2.
Makefile | 6 ++
check-headers.sh | 26 ++
2 files change
5 matches
Mail list logo