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=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 A977E1FBEC for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 19:53:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932789AbdCJTxo (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:53:44 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:63140 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755485AbdCJTxn (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:53:43 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB66674C7; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:53:41 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BhQLRVzjJE2si0Ox1/OIc9M4mVQ=; b=YzfhB0 5dfdM4pd/saa4su1s0vTSkJs5pMWC1uRYXp6Ju4tefjx9NXGScFUS8Eo/JvkaRWu FMRiYGiQXgGTYs2fRdehSwUaUrBz8RNSY/BZqCX8ol/1d9nvZ6sfpI3ntSWxjYUq 0jX36pb6fbWZVzirQOOGeDVoM1+QwQbw5/lho= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=oqyLsWVl98xrHdeS6EjgosVc8sJ+HekV TPPCj+cfthzhJWR85Ib2MZB84D5NyF4Jbzdgd8fkFCr0eNNW5APgfPcpeEMRNI1+ vS7RVaBIhcoBVFAusIAI+jKRdd8vMSx6Cjcq8IqlKND0sV1Fc7AP/G6gioeCygp/ jUH+FX8KyKc= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DA9674C6; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:53:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E022B674C5; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:53:40 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: "brian m. carlson" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2017, #03; Wed, 8) References: <20170309010152.klyhhth3ekm2iia2@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:53:39 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20170309010152.klyhhth3ekm2iia2@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> (brian m. carlson's message of "Thu, 9 Mar 2017 01:01:52 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 42718CEC-05CB-11E7-8635-FC50AE2156B6-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "brian m. carlson" writes: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:47:20PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> * bc/object-id (2017-02-22) 19 commits >> - wt-status: convert to struct object_id >> - builtin/merge-base: convert to struct object_id >> - Convert object iteration callbacks to struct object_id >> - sha1_file: introduce an nth_packed_object_oid function >> - refs: simplify parsing of reflog entries >> - refs: convert each_reflog_ent_fn to struct object_id >> - reflog-walk: convert struct reflog_info to struct object_id >> - builtin/replace: convert to struct object_id >> - Convert remaining callers of resolve_refdup to object_id >> - builtin/merge: convert to struct object_id >> - builtin/clone: convert to struct object_id >> - builtin/branch: convert to struct object_id >> - builtin/grep: convert to struct object_id >> - builtin/fmt-merge-message: convert to struct object_id >> - builtin/fast-export: convert to struct object_id >> - builtin/describe: convert to struct object_id >> - builtin/diff-tree: convert to struct object_id >> - builtin/commit: convert to struct object_id >> - hex: introduce parse_oid_hex >> >> "uchar [40]" to "struct object_id" conversion continues. >> >> Now at v5. >> cf. <20170221234737.894681-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> > > Were you expecting more work on this series? I believe I've addressed > all the review comments that were outstanding, but if I've missed > something, please let me know. I myself am not aware but I wasn't the one with most comments to this series, so we need help from others to reconfirm "Yeah, this one is now good to go". Thanks.