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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 BCFA1201A7 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 01:16:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754653AbdERBQi (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 May 2017 21:16:38 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:36261 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754080AbdERBQh (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 May 2017 21:16:37 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id k15so6100150wmh.3 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 18:16:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=IJ3+rSnrZ6r0+HpbmjOq5PkdCOqeuwR3i4aqK7RCg0w=; b=Skobm1KXsjMjWvkA8nblHooEC0Qfur7uGat2YGnRd+RciwyYtwOmOIo+vR/EU+AwNL 1nYm5rkvGsnpkVLq044QIDtfbR+aflUhAJZwfFhCx1f3XxX4m0dCSwtODW47m4EAaSK3 mhB8p7OFsuYIyUzqKyQphF29rCX1NZnzTrM0EqPvjwcYlueGi2XA75Ww3/3U0zAH/9xb WHPcRNKbxaJ3AtBHqbOcRee4F/AJEmD5uUq8xtj4DcvGlVkC0cPa0nSy66HqeG4CScFx T9t2qVNihNn24YJfRelqlszqsXNGjMXx5jkAr/r6mVEybhQdCYgE+YIwpjt3tBSktERH 7Btg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IJ3+rSnrZ6r0+HpbmjOq5PkdCOqeuwR3i4aqK7RCg0w=; b=s0utWHobxwDzDC1yw1r3vMgebqNJXFixPwndrkv57jEIlmuSaHVmItSH8TGeVHhZ2W lP/7thBaho5HSHKB+PXYzJVy6GnqggRnQ6UXC0BaMaK7ZVeZ5O5arXxfYkQZTHrg+v/C 9b6WZd7RsidD3ucenNO2It+0DPOUlWeGCrz3Ucze7TGnj3M2yf/+afOSS4Ui0Mh6HIuZ jLkwcVnznTRTYaShe6yHf2X7Jb5sc9beT9iwO+CIkfGHf0gVRInHyzx6mpDuPndq+aVC 7yUiJeBj9WmKfO88jf8H0bbt3/jZ4PfG0E4IcObgRo/2+JJGXVPBxVdB+qHkDoprFKyk GXGw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCvmuvseaG4I2CL6BtcZju8XVlThhzANigwQ9KIPwjqwOcqnqH0 sbFF7kQFEl6j2Rd9xjnYOJY5z+KqYw== X-Received: by 10.25.156.75 with SMTP id f72mr309483lfe.77.1495070196276; Wed, 17 May 2017 18:16:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.71.69 with HTTP; Wed, 17 May 2017 18:16:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170518000735.GD185461@google.com> References: <20170517002825.GR27400@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> <20170517005041.46310-1-manishearth@gmail.com> <20170518000735.GD185461@google.com> From: Manish Goregaokar Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 18:16:15 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: XuoSGmnk--FFbi7jZHtYdq2ICHw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] refs: Add for_each_worktree_ref for iterating over all worktree HEADs To: Brandon Williams Cc: Manish Goregaokar , git@vger.kernel.org, Michael Haggerty , Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , =?UTF-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41jIER1eQ==?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > Just as an fyi, its usually fine to send out a path RFC Ah, this is helpful! Yes, I was still trying to get the tests to run, so consider this WIP. I have since gotten them to run and found one failure which I fixed (didn't null-check `commit`). Waiting for them to finish again, will send new patches when done. Sorry about that. > but I'm just hoping to provide you with some of the expectations we have. Thank you! I thought I'd submit the patch early so that I could get the basic design through review; I wasn't sure if I was using the right APIs for this task. I should probably write a test for this too. Looks straightforward enough. > Welcome! Take a load off and stay a while :) :) -Manish Goregaokar On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > On 05/17, Manish Goregaokar wrote: >> Oh, btw, refs.c needs an #include "worktree.h" to work; I didn't get a >> chance to test this after rebasing onto the maint branch. >> >> (There's also another fix it needs to have no warnings, but that's not >> going to affect building). I have this fixed locally, but I'll wait >> for the rest of the review before pushing them up. >> -Manish Goregaokar > > Just as an fyi, its usually fine to send out a path RFC (request for > comments) or WIP (Work in Progress) which compiles with warnings (or > maybe not at all) and which doesn't pass all tests. If you do that just > make sure to indicate as such. > > Though if you are sending out a patch which you want to be seriously > reviewed and ultimately merged then the best practice is to ensure that > it compiles without warnings and that all tests pass. I'm definitely > guilty of this occasionally (no one's perfect!) but I'm just hoping to > provide you with some of the expectations we have. > > I'm assuming you're newer to the community, so Welcome! Take a load off > and stay a while :) > > -- > Brandon Williams