On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 09:09:11PM +0300, Оля Тележная wrote:
> I added "v2" after "PATCH", but it does not appeared. Actually it was
> written automatically and it was "PATCH Outreachy v2". I rearranged it
> in the middle of the phrase.
That looks fine.
> > I'm not sure what you mean about chec
I added "v2" after "PATCH", but it does not appeared. Actually it was
written automatically and it was "PATCH Outreachy v2". I rearranged it
in the middle of the phrase.
>> I forgot about leak. I also need to add checking in mru_clear. That's
>> not beautiful solution but it works reliably.
>
> I'
Jeff King writes:
> Yes, I think we could just call this "list_move_to_front()" or
> something. The fact that it's operating on a list called
> "packed_git_mru" is probably sufficient to make it clear that the
> purpose is managing recentness.
I earlier said I wasn't sure, but I fully agree with
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:38:27PM +0300, Оля Тележная wrote:
> > About minor issues ( "tmp" vs "p2", variable scope, space indentation)
> > - fully agree, I will fix it.
> > ...
> > So finally I think that I need to fix that minor issues and that's
> > all.
>
> I forgot about leak. I also need t
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 07:08:28PM +0300, Оля Тележная wrote:
> Many thanks to all of you, I am interested in every opinion. Sorry
> that I wasn't in the discussion, unfortunately I got sick, that's why
> I skipped all the process.
No problem. It's often reasonable to let review comments come in
> About minor issues ( "tmp" vs "p2", variable scope, space indentation)
> - fully agree, I will fix it.
> ...
> So finally I think that I need to fix that minor issues and that's
> all.
I forgot about leak. I also need to add checking in mru_clear. That's
not beautiful solution but it works relia
Hi everyone,
Many thanks to all of you, I am interested in every opinion. Sorry
that I wasn't in the discussion, unfortunately I got sick, that's why
I skipped all the process.
I want to reply to the main moments and also ask some questions.
>> Simplify mru.c, mru.h and related code by reusing the
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 09:18:11AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
>
>> As we use the "prepare_packed_git_run_once" static, this function will
>> only be called only once when packed_git_mru has not yet been
>> initialized, so there will be no lea
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 09:18:11AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:38:39AM +, Olga Telezhnaya wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/packfile.c b/packfile.c
> >> index f69a5c8d607af..ae3b0b2e9c09a 100644
> >> --- a/packf
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:38:39AM +, Olga Telezhnaya wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/packfile.c b/packfile.c
>> index f69a5c8d607af..ae3b0b2e9c09a 100644
>> --- a/packfile.c
>> +++ b/packfile.c
>> @@ -876,6 +876,7 @@ void prepare_packed_git(void)
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:38:39AM +, Olga Telezhnaya wrote:
> diff --git a/packfile.c b/packfile.c
> index f69a5c8d607af..ae3b0b2e9c09a 100644
> --- a/packfile.c
> +++ b/packfile.c
> @@ -876,6 +876,7 @@ void prepare_packed_git(void)
> for (alt = alt_odb_list; alt; alt = alt->next)
>
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 06:56:28AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > But I also think this patch may be a stepping stone to dropping "struct
> > mru" entirely, and just pushing a "struct list_head mru" into the
> > packed_git object itself (or of course any object you like).
Jeff King writes:
> But I also think this patch may be a stepping stone to dropping "struct
> mru" entirely, and just pushing a "struct list_head mru" into the
> packed_git object itself (or of course any object you like). At which
> point we'd just directly use the list iterators anyway.
The en
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:38:39AM +, Olga Telezhnaya wrote:
> Simplify mru.c, mru.h and related code by reusing the double-linked
> list implementation from list.h instead of a custom one.
The commit message is a good reason to talk about why we want to do
this. In this case, the answer may
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:03:00PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > - for (entry = packed_git_mru.head; entry; entry = entry->next) {
> > + list_for_each(pos, &packed_git_mru.list) {
> > + struct mru *entry = list_entry(pos, struct mru, list);
> > struct packed_git *p = e
Olga Telezhnaya writes:
> Simplify mru.c, mru.h and related code by reusing the double-linked list
> implementation from list.h instead of a custom one.
An overlong line (I can locally wrap it, so the patch does not have
to be re-sent only to fix this alone).
> Signed-off-by: Olga Telezhnaia
Simplify mru.c, mru.h and related code by reusing the double-linked list
implementation from list.h instead of a custom one.
Signed-off-by: Olga Telezhnaia
Mentored-by: Christian Couder
Mentored by: Jeff King
---
builtin/pack-objects.c | 5 +++--
mru.c | 51 +++--
17 matches
Mail list logo