Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Please check dev/hanwen for changes.
>
> The `HACKING' changes looks good overall, thank you! The "complete
> description in the commit message" should rather be "complete
> ChangeLog-style description in th
Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
>
>>> Note that what we agreed on was to provide ChangeLog-style comments in
>>> the Git log entry, which this patch doesn't have.
>> Can you explain me exactly what you want and why?
Hi,
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
>> Note that what we agreed on was to provide ChangeLog-style comments in
>> the Git log entry, which this patch doesn't have.
>
> Can you explain me exactly what you want and why?
I'm suggesting that we keep using Cha
Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Pushed (without changelog entry).
>
> Note that what we agreed on was to provide ChangeLog-style comments in
> the Git log entry, which this patch doesn't have.
Can you explain me exactly what you want and why? I hope
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pushed (without changelog entry).
Note that what we agreed on was to provide ChangeLog-style comments in
the Git log entry, which this patch doesn't have.
Thanks,
Ludo'.
Hi,
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please check dev/hanwen for changes.
The `HACKING' changes looks good overall, thank you! The "complete
description in the commit message" should rather be "complete
ChangeLog-style description in the commit message (see the GNU Coding
Standa
Hi,
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand: memoization is only supposed to happen once for
> each piece of code, right? So, the cost of it is not that interesting?
Yes, it's done only once, but if a piece of code hasn't yet been
memoized and is called simultaneously
