From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gc: call "prune --expire 2.weeks.ago" by default Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:43:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <7vskywadum.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <47D8193B.901@nrlssc.navy.mil> <47D83532.70103@nrlssc.navy.mil> <47D83C53.7000602@nrlssc.navy.mil> <7vejaf65q0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vwso74p33.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vzlt335a5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vod9j342h.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Brandon Casey , Jakub Narebski , Nicolas Pitre , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 13 00:43:52 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 1JZabv-0004gF-3m for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:43:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752040AbYCLXnN (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:43:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751997AbYCLXnN (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:43:13 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:42036 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751807AbYCLXnM (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:43:12 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2008 23:43:10 -0000 Received: from host86-138-198-40.range86-138.btcentralplus.com (EHLO racer.home) [86.138.198.40] by mail.gmx.net (mp049) with SMTP; 13 Mar 2008 00:43:10 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+dVAZ3RcadaC5DczzjMTQ8RDPPq+k1H1SfpO9v90 5OndbSzOI4gaB3 X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vod9j342h.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I have to wonder if approxidate_with_error() function that takes a > pointer to receive an error condition may be a better way to solve this > cleanly. Right. But that will have to wait for at least tomorrow, if it waits for me. Ciao, Dscho