From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: [PATCH] gitweb: unify boolean feature subroutines Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:10:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20081217081028.GA3640@machine.or.cz> References: <7vabawu1ao.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1229408179-7655-1-git-send-email-kraai@ftbfs.org> <7vmyewqypk.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20081216142357.GF4529@ftbfs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Narebski To: Matt Kraai X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 17 09:11:57 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LCrVb-0000nY-At for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:11:55 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752882AbYLQIKb (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:10:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752805AbYLQIKb (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:10:31 -0500 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:57407 "EHLO machine.or.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751463AbYLQIKa (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:10:30 -0500 Received: by machine.or.cz (Postfix, from userid 2001) id A30B1244C024; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:10:28 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081216142357.GF4529@ftbfs.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 06:23:57AM -0800, Matt Kraai wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 01:03:03AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > But a change to the function signature of feature subroutines is not > > something I'd like to apply while other series that want to add new > > features are still cooking. How about doing these two patches as the > > first thing that goes to 'next' after 1.6.1, and then force other series > > rebase on top of your change? Alternatively, we could make you wait until > > other series do settle in 'next' and then apply your change rebased on > > them, but I think that is probably less optimal. > > OK, I'll resubmit the patches on top of 'next' once 1.6.1 is > released. Thanks for your help, is it worth keeping them separate? Just a single patch makes more sense to me, the interface is much nicer in the latter than in the former. :-) Petr "Pasky" Baudis