Jeff King writes:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:36:45PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
>
>> > So now we have packet_write() and packet_write_gently(), but they differ
>> > in more than just whether they are gentle. That seems like a weird
>> > interface.
>> >
>> > Should we either
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 15:28, Jeff King wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:04:00PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> From: Lars Schneider
>>
>> packet_write() has two shortcomings. First, it uses format_packet() which
>> lets the caller
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:04:00PM +0200, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Lars Schneider
>
> packet_write() has two shortcomings. First, it uses format_packet() which
> lets the caller only send string data via "%s". That means it cannot be
> used for arbitrary
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 20:21, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Lars Schneider writes:
>
>>> On 10 Aug 2016, at 19:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>
>> OK. Does this mean I can leave the "packet_write()" to "packet_write_fmt()"
>> rename as
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:36:45PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
> > So now we have packet_write() and packet_write_gently(), but they differ
> > in more than just whether they are gentle. That seems like a weird
> > interface.
> >
> > Should we either be picking a new name (e.g.,
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 19:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Jeff King writes:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:36:45PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
>>
So now we have packet_write() and packet_write_gently(), but they differ
in more than just whether they
Lars Schneider writes:
>> On 10 Aug 2016, at 19:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
> OK. Does this mean I can leave the "packet_write()" to "packet_write_fmt()"
> rename as is in this series?
I didn't really check what order you are doing things to
7 matches
Mail list logo