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=-4.2 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 1D7271FAFB for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932163AbdC1Rcl (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:32:41 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:53794 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932157AbdC1Rcl (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:32:41 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B36C75BE1; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:32:25 -0400 (EDT) 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=sL1imgDF/yrP6wtUzwm9dKwimsM=; b=fyFWjc 5Ecn0kZxwpXTMwZ+tmOmLCLheMxub94Ykoa5vlAjBImK5scPfyjX1vLGiny+5Vih wv1701SAC7gu5lx0bNlIb56ozSdYkvZn30Lg7suK1QbwUSL02+0ROZuqbblqleSj lgq1w/qoGg65PschXSQMlyAhf+T3FI8uXW3QM= 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=QcH/btnH6kIdfs6Ck8Ezg5Y0ZpdrokOx 5UoqXzXrjrMTAGNparGF2EqIudZjSG85zIBBQLl3idgSgA0psXruA5rMXPtF+NcK DBEzIpCXY2OuzMKhdTiTpk86m2zIVBQn+tyC7Z5LR3o6snZ/5f2vYnu/zw0AlTzp dg1MhaUhpqM= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626A675BE0; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:32:25 -0400 (EDT) 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 CA33C75BDF; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:32:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: "brian m. carlson" , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] object_id part 7 References: <20170326160143.769630-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20170328073159.k3xemw6auh3iedgs@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:32:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170328073159.k3xemw6auh3iedgs@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 28 Mar 2017 03:31:59 -0400") 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: 81BC3162-13DC-11E7-A64A-FC50AE2156B6-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 04:01:22PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > >> This is part 7 in the continuing transition to use struct object_id. >> >> This series focuses on two main areas: adding two constants for the >> maximum hash size we'll be using (which will be suitable for allocating >> memory) and converting struct sha1_array to struct oid_array. > > Both changes are very welcome. I do think it's probably worth changing > the name of sha1-array.[ch], but it doesn't need to happen immediately. > > I read through the whole series and didn't find anything objectionable. > The pointer-arithmetic fix should perhaps graduate separately. I didn't see anything incorrect when I queued the series, either, and after I re-read it I saw a few minor readability issues, but modulo that this looks ready. I did split the push-cert parsing fix and applied to an older base independently, though. > I suggested an additional cleanup around "linelen" in one patch. In the > name of keeping the number of re-rolls sane, I'm OK if we skip that for > now (the only reason I mentioned it at all is that you have to justify > the caveat in the commit message; with the fix, that justification can > go away). A follow-up after the dust settles could also mention "we earlier mentioned this caveat but with this fix we no longer have to worry about it", no? Thanks both, anyways.