Re: [PATCH 01/15] builtin/add.c: rearrange xcalloc arguments

2014-05-27 Thread Brian Gesiak
Oomph, how embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out! Would it be better if I rerolled the patches? - Brian Gesiak On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com wrote: xcalloc takes two

Re: [PATCH 01/15] builtin/add.c: rearrange xcalloc arguments

2014-05-27 Thread Eric Sunshine
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com wrote: Oomph, how embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out! Etiquette on this list is to avoid top-posting [1]. [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/11/111 Would it be better if I rerolled the patches? Junio may or may not make

Re: [PATCH 01/15] builtin/add.c: rearrange xcalloc arguments

2014-05-27 Thread Junio C Hamano
Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com writes: If you do re-roll, perhaps consider simplifying the commit messages. The patch itself states concisely and precisely what is being changed; the lengthy prose description doesn't really add anything (and makes more work for you and the reader of

Re: [PATCH 01/15] builtin/add.c: rearrange xcalloc arguments

2014-05-27 Thread Jeremiah Mahler
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 05:35:29PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com wrote: Oomph, how embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out! Etiquette on this list is to avoid top-posting [1]. [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/11/111 A:

Re: [PATCH 01/15] builtin/add.c: rearrange xcalloc arguments

2014-05-27 Thread Brian Gesiak
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: I do not think it is worth doing this change starting from maint, so I've dropped this one and a few others that did not apply to master and queued the remainder to 'pu'. Thank you! I'll keep this in mind when choosing

[PATCH 01/15] builtin/add.c: rearrange xcalloc arguments

2014-05-26 Thread Brian Gesiak
xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their size. run_add_interactive passes the arguments in reverse order, passing the size of a char*, followed by the number of char* to be allocated. Rearrgange them so they are in the correct order. Signed-off-by: Brian Gesiak

Re: [PATCH 01/15] builtin/add.c: rearrange xcalloc arguments

2014-05-26 Thread Jeremiah Mahler
Brian, On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:33:42AM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote: xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their size. run_add_interactive passes the arguments in reverse order, passing the size of a char*, followed by the number of char* to be allocated. Rearrgange them so

Re: [PATCH 01/15] builtin/add.c: rearrange xcalloc arguments

2014-05-26 Thread Brian Gesiak
My apologies! I based my work off of maint, branching off of eea591. My reasoning was that Documentation/SubmittingPatches states that a bugfix should be based on 'maint'. [1] Now that I think about it, this is probably not the kind of bug that statement had in mind. Should I reroll the patch

Re: [PATCH 01/15] builtin/add.c: rearrange xcalloc arguments

2014-05-26 Thread Jeremiah Mahler
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:22:00AM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote: My apologies! I based my work off of maint, branching off of eea591. My reasoning was that Documentation/SubmittingPatches states that a bugfix should be based on 'maint'. [1] Now that I think about it, this is probably not the

Re: [PATCH 01/15] builtin/add.c: rearrange xcalloc arguments

2014-05-26 Thread Eric Sunshine
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com wrote: xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their size. run_add_interactive passes the arguments in reverse order, passing the size of a char*, followed by the number of char* to be allocated. Rearrgange them