From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] Some cleanups Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:33:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20160331193333.GD5013@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1459447446-32260-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> <20160331191252.GB5013@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Stefan Beller , sunshine@sunshineco.com, git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 31 21:33:46 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aliLh-0007V1-VG for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:33:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756267AbcCaTdh (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:33:37 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:41881 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752654AbcCaTdg (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:33:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 9112 invoked by uid 102); 31 Mar 2016 19:33:35 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:33:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 16937 invoked by uid 107); 31 Mar 2016 19:33:35 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:33:35 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:33:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:31:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > With the exception of the comments on patch 3, these all look good. I'll > > leave it to Junio to decide whether he wants to polish up his "get rid > > of strbuf_split" patch for patch 2. Certainly yours is a strict > > improvement over what is there. > > I do not think there were anything further to be polished up. Other > than that, I agree with all of the above. Well, by polish up, I meant "write a commit message for". :) The patch itself looked fine to me. -Peff