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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,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 8F84A1FCA5 for ; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 06:47:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753867AbcLaGrw (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Dec 2016 01:47:52 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:33503 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752437AbcLaGrw (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Dec 2016 01:47:52 -0500 Received: (qmail 12023 invoked by uid 109); 31 Dec 2016 06:47:51 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 06:47:51 +0000 Received: (qmail 2255 invoked by uid 111); 31 Dec 2016 06:48:38 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 01:48:38 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 31 Dec 2016 01:47:46 -0500 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 01:47:46 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Michael Haggerty Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, David Turner Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/23] Delete directories left empty after ref deletion Message-ID: <20161231064746.6bvis76p5x5ubc2b@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 04:12:40AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote: > This is a re-roll of an old patch series. v1 [1] got some feedback, > which I think was all addressed in v2 [2]. But it seems that v2 fell > on the floor, and I didn't bother following up because it was in the > same area of code that was undergoing heavy changes due to the > pluggable reference backend work. Sorry for the long delay before > getting back to it. I've read through the whole thing, and aside from a few very minor nits (that I am not even sure are worth a re-roll), I didn't see anything wrong. And the overall goal and approach seem obviously sound. > Michael Haggerty (23): I'll admit to being daunted by the number of patches, but it was quite a pleasant and easy read. Thanks. -Peff