Re: [PATCH 0/6] clean up parsing of maybe_bool

On 8 August 2017 at 19:04, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Martin Ågren writes: > >> Thanks, both of you. I could wait a couple of days to see if there are >> other things to address, then send a v2 with a more aggressive patch 5? > > Sounds like a plan. If

Re: [PATCH 0/6] clean up parsing of maybe_bool

Martin Ågren writes: > Thanks, both of you. I could wait a couple of days to see if there are > other things to address, then send a v2 with a more aggressive patch 5? Sounds like a plan. If there aren't anything else, I personally do not mind using what is already on

Re: [PATCH 0/6] clean up parsing of maybe_bool

On 7 August 2017 at 23:12, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> The series looks fine to me overall, though patch 5 is overly gentle IMHO. >> We could have removed it right there as Junio is very good at resolving >> conflicts or producing

Re: [PATCH 0/6] clean up parsing of maybe_bool

Stefan Beller writes: > The series looks fine to me overall, though patch 5 is overly gentle IMHO. > We could have removed it right there as Junio is very good at resolving > conflicts or producing dirty merges for such a situation. > But delaying it until no other series'

Re: [PATCH 0/6] clean up parsing of maybe_bool

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Martin Ågren wrote: > When we want to parse a boolean config item without dying on error, we > call git_config_maybe_bool() which takes two arguments: the value to be > parsed (obviously) and a `name` which is completely ignored. Junio has

[PATCH 0/6] clean up parsing of maybe_bool

When we want to parse a boolean config item without dying on error, we call git_config_maybe_bool() which takes two arguments: the value to be parsed (obviously) and a `name` which is completely ignored. Junio has suggested to drop `name` and rename the function [1]. That effort even started