On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:00:55PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Adam Spiers <g...@adamspiers.org> writes:
> > It has been rebased on the latest master, and passed a full test run.
> FYI, I applied the attached on top before queuing it in 'pu'.
> Points to note:
>  * We match the underline and the title of documentation header;
>  * a few type mismatches (constness of full_path and treat_gitlink()
>    signature) that broke compilation;

Of course I will incorporate these tweaks in my re-roll, but it
worries me that my environment yielded no compilation issues even
without these tweaks.  Obviously I wouldn't have dreamed of submitting
a patch series which didn't even compile!  I'm using a modern gcc, and
I guess you probably are too?  Which would suggest to me that either
your environment is somehow set up to perform stricter type checking
than mine[1], or that there's a weird compiler-oriented bug somewhere
(e.g. in Makefile).  Or maybe I'm missing something obvious ...

[1] I'm in favour of stricter compiler checks where possible:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to