From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB5320FCF for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 06:16:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751486AbcF3GQ3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2016 02:16:29 -0400 Received: from elnino.cryptocrack.de ([46.165.227.75]:11649 "EHLO elnino.cryptocrack.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750937AbcF3GQ2 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2016 02:16:28 -0400 Received: by elnino.cryptocrack.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 66de5858 TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 08:16:25 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT To: Junio C Hamano , "Nicolas Pitre" From: Lukas Fleischer In-Reply-To: Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Johannes Schindelin" , "Jeff King" References: <20160613195224.13398-1-lfleischer@lfos.de> Message-ID: <146726738438.11587.1114281440699318943@s-8d3a3869.on.site.uni-stuttgart.de> User-Agent: alot/0.3.7 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Refactor recv_sideband() Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 08:16:24 +0200 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 at 18:40:16, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Lukas, can you see what is in 'pu' after I push out today's > integration result in several hours and tell us if you like the > result of the SQUASH??? change? Looks good to me. Thank you both for working on this. Note that you should amend the last paragraph of the original commit message when you squash Nicos patch into mine. Oh, and one more detail: I wonder why we still use fwrite(), now that we know we can use xwrite() which guarantees atomicity. Is there a reason for that? Regards, Lukas