From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB533C38A2A for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 18:58:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942F221974 for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 18:58:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="ZK5447tz" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727108AbgEHS6b (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2020 14:58:31 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:58538 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727104AbgEHS63 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2020 14:58:29 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBA3B9394; Fri, 8 May 2020 14:58:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=4OGONtZDRoLMZ3t2oQk2xczXJNU=; b=ZK5447 tzWz1D13MbkIgZMmzII7EXzaXPpjkqMJwT8fceleiqz29tO8rvA99OmJ6NvagxEl ARZPqOWHj+a9viiQuNAPHlLisZveep6PGTVNQSPSI4Jd+i7+61q8AGk7Qz9OjnrL jZVl4d0KQ+p/VRQVhdJGQCyN3S/VCluFH6PIs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=BRz0bomYCOuIOua4HSAdCTNWdV4hgdvo rOhsG6bwAiCgjGCWBbCqeJhUK4MKf4VSbfkd+xpXtG96pZm9+T3vja01XD9CVQB2 ruPkEfv3EV2NKRHPvYv+cYLRhXXsuVk+vRuHoyPyB7Vnrm3Y1IciM4JUMFlTSI9O 5sTtE/ID2jk= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83921B9393; Fri, 8 May 2020 14:58:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C267BB938E; Fri, 8 May 2020 14:58:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Han-Wen Nienhuys , Han-Wen Nienhuys Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 03/12] refs: document how ref_iterator_advance_fn should handle symrefs References: <6553285043b2f004cca646aefd59c509324d4da3.1588845586.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 11:58:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: <6553285043b2f004cca646aefd59c509324d4da3.1588845586.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> (Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget's message of "Thu, 07 May 2020 09:59:36 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E4FF087E-915D-11EA-84AB-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Han-Wen Nienhuys > > Signed-off-by: Han-Wen Nienhuys > --- > refs/refs-internal.h | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/refs/refs-internal.h b/refs/refs-internal.h > index ff2436c0fb7..3490aac3a40 100644 > --- a/refs/refs-internal.h > +++ b/refs/refs-internal.h > @@ -438,6 +438,11 @@ void base_ref_iterator_free(struct ref_iterator *iter); > > /* Virtual function declarations for ref_iterators: */ > > +/* > + * backend-specific implementation of ref_iterator_advance. > + * For symrefs, the function should set REF_ISSYMREF, and it should also > + * dereference the symref to provide the OID referent. > + */ > typedef int ref_iterator_advance_fn(struct ref_iterator *ref_iterator); > > typedef int ref_iterator_peel_fn(struct ref_iterator *ref_iterator, Makes sense. I wonder if I should take 1-3/12 as a separate "clean-up" series and merge it before everything else down to 'master'? That would reduce the churn somewhat. I also wonder if there are similar "clean-up" buried later in the series. For example, would it make sense to also move 11/12 and have it graduate early together with 1-3/12? Thanks.