On Aug 26, 2014, at 8:29 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 05:23:24PM +0200, Steffen Prohaska wrote:
The caller opened the fd, so it should be responsible for closing it.
Signed-off-by: Steffen Prohaska proha...@zib.de
---
copy.c | 5 +
lockfile.c | 3
Steffen Prohaska proha...@zib.de writes:
On Aug 26, 2014, at 8:29 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
...
Makes all sense, and seems sane to me, too.
Junio, I saw that you have the changes on pu with 'SQUASH???...'. Will you
squash it, or shall I send another complete update of the patch
The caller opened the fd, so it should be responsible for closing it.
Signed-off-by: Steffen Prohaska proha...@zib.de
---
copy.c | 5 +
lockfile.c | 3 +++
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/copy.c b/copy.c
index a7f58fd..d0a1d82 100644
--- a/copy.c
+++
be responsible; it is more
about the callee did not open it, does not own it, and should allow
the caller, if it chooses, reuse it by seeking after the callee is
done.
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] Change copy_fd() to not close input fd
Let's follow the area: description convention here, too, e.g
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 05:23:24PM +0200, Steffen Prohaska wrote:
The caller opened the fd, so it should be responsible for closing it.
Signed-off-by: Steffen Prohaska proha...@zib.de
---
copy.c | 5 +
lockfile.c | 3 +++
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff
5 matches
Mail list logo
