From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E021F9E0 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726746AbgD3T3e (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:29:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51714 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726396AbgD3T3e (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:29:34 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1041.google.com (mail-pj1-x1041.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1041]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24EBCC035494 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:29:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1041.google.com with SMTP id y6so1224928pjc.4 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:29:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=LL0VqXuH9/XxICaNoDLb6G50LZS9H73qooUxv9wvHk4=; b=Zrf4BW+MkISkER6WDeRaBZjnE+2IjRXtRRjcM4OPh3nDC6rP1WfsMv4uJ54gelUMlr Z/+TMq0QcmBt+ymdyWGcHH6PUnb50/bm6dwA3i0+XrJxIrRfT+c5UOS4vdHQelgU/nWo r6HqBhCKGl7imDTXZYPkRXhysayBNxmYvPaUOcHnAJyIQdEvkI7sl1EwG8IZJ9/51v1g UVY3fAQ6PY5z+YJH/XUsHQzwv2QMKp2aC616wzACJn6mACqvzOqoBDYEvPl0dNgwK+LW 98o3itBqy3hk7pkmrKq1Z2XgFDB8bmhZtwrKpRT7EayxrstZtGl0y2meKyfqhzMwEtUY hRRQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=LL0VqXuH9/XxICaNoDLb6G50LZS9H73qooUxv9wvHk4=; b=bmXiaFgHaDIlu3sBym6yn1XdxBla7GHZPJ5QkYiI7Gofp0pdAxOa0JGsWVZX6l2ozu 33FJPY5hk8RPUkK9uTwy8/zAwHDD0YmrgiJWXQ0+qhocVSe4qpfup/UjRxmiepCoM2qI caXL+SwznjTcEmNc//7CgibbbBIy3rohgJVogBZkphmMrvSsh3LmvlcR0tdnQxUCIjAc 6XDZtNW5hQ4PtmX5n9beR1j9zAkPcj5X81Cjmzj74W60zmzbYiw36DdsJhvEfNJQ2c7s XkE+INOS8gOy3S8JWXiU9xvhPQ5tARFSzj4bCZvcbrf27gf4JY7rss1hvVJGOz4aK+aC SVag== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pub9JSuoqEhBm7R0bPYjziWcxF40HdgW0yBcBjOodHl4S+bcOEtb 4R97T8uqI7oxgvXPxD13lUOxvw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLajHNMbpeu0eqM+2nc9gPI8+j4elFZqRatGbv1meMo82lRa+BiNc0olDE8L7aZJnWEh+4K0A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:2526:: with SMTP id j35mr404038pje.98.1588274973524; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([8.44.146.30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n9sm487844pjt.29.2020.04.30.12.29.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 13:29:31 -0600 From: Taylor Blau To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, jonathantanmy@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] commit: move 'unregister_shallow' to 'shallow.h' Message-ID: <20200430192931.GB6280@syl.local> References: <65ecfeaba56807926fbe532f94921c98298e50d5.1588199705.git.me@ttaylorr.com> <20200430031350.GD115238@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200430031350.GD115238@google.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:13:50PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Taylor Blau wrote: > > > In the last commit, we introduced a header for the functions defined in > > 'shallow.c'. There is one remaining shallow-related function in > > commit.c which should be moved, too. This patch moves that function. > > > > Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau > > --- > > commit.c | 13 ------------- > > shallow.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > > shallow.h | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > Yes, an obviously good thing to do. > > Perhaps could be squashed with patch 1 (but also see my review of that > one). Do you mean patch 2/5? If so, I think that it probably makes more sense to go there than in the first patch. (I originally thought that it would be useful for people reading the diff to have this change broken out into its own patch, but I think that it's more juggling to do in terms of figuring out which headers to include than is worth.) > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder > > Should this take a "struct repository" parameter? Probably, but I'd rather leave this series to be just focused on moving this code around while being minimally invasive. Thanks, Taylor