Re: [PATCHv2 5/6] push.c: add an --atomic-push argument

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Cc: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>,
	Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>,
	Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>,
	ronniesahlberg@gmail.com, Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 5/6] push.c: add an --atomic-push argument
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:43:04 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqbnn39vhj.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cR5x=GsZ6Gg_i==o0WKgqU1PP9uQ6QAgNkF8SBOvRCJ5g@mail.gmail.com> (Eric Sunshine's message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:33:20 -0500")

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

>> +--atomic::
>> +       Use the an atomic transaction on the server side if available.
>
> s/the an/an/
> ...
>> +               OPT_BIT(0, "atomic", &flags, N_("use a single atomic transaction at the serverside, if available"),
>
> "single atomic" sounds awfully redundant.
>
> "serverside" is odd. Perhaps "server side" or merely "remote" or "remote side".
> ...
>> diff --git a/transport.h b/transport.h
>> index 3e0091e..25fa1da 100644
>> --- a/transport.h
>> +++ b/transport.h
>> @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ struct transport {
>>  #define TRANSPORT_PUSH_NO_HOOK 512
>>  #define TRANSPORT_PUSH_FOLLOW_TAGS 1024
>>  #define TRANSPORT_PUSH_CERT 2048
>> +#define TRANSPORT_ATOMIC_PUSH 4096
>
> For consistency with existing names, should this be TRANSPORT_PUSH_ATOMIC?

As always, thanks for a careful reading.  I missed everything you
pointed out (I agree with you).