On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> It took me a while to figure out that you are basing this on top of > a slightly older tip of 'master'. When rebasing on, or merging to, > a newer codebase Sorry about that. Yes, I worked on the series over time and rebased a couple times up to v2.15.0. I assumed that was new enough, but clearly I was wrong. > By the way, checkpatch.pl complains about // C99 comments and binary > operators missing SP on both ends, etc., on the entire series [*1*]. > These look like small issues, but they are distracting enough to > break concentration while reading the changes to spot places with > real issues and places that can be improved, so cleaning them up > early would help the final result to get better reviews. > > I won't reproduce all of them here, but here are a representable > few. Eek! My apologies. I will go through and fix them up. I see no reference to checkpatch.pl in git, but a google search shows there's one in the linux source tree. Is that were I get it from, or is there a different one? Also, would you like me to make a separate commit that cleans up pre-existing issues in merge-recursive.c so that it runs clean, or just remove the problems I added? Thanks for all the reviews!
