Re: [PATCH 0/2] Re* Consequences of CRLF in index?

2017-10-31 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:41:25AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Stefan Beller writes: > > > >> (I note this as you regard your patches as a lunch time hack > >> in the cooking email; I am serious

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Re* Consequences of CRLF in index?

2017-10-31 Thread Stefan Beller
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> (I note this as you regard your patches as a lunch time hack >> in the cooking email; I am serious about these patches though.) > > We do not want to touch borrowed code

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Re* Consequences of CRLF in index?

2017-10-30 Thread Junio C Hamano
Stefan Beller writes: > (I note this as you regard your patches as a lunch time hack > in the cooking email; I am serious about these patches though.) We do not want to touch borrowed code unnecessarily. Are these lines and bits hampering further progress we are actively

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Re* Consequences of CRLF in index?

2017-10-30 Thread Stefan Beller
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Stefan Beller wrote: >> Let's do this bit-shuffling as a preliminary clean-up. > > These 2 patches can go on top of that as well. Actually these textually do not conflict with your patch, and they can be picked independently, e.g. they could

[PATCH 0/2] Re* Consequences of CRLF in index?

2017-10-27 Thread Stefan Beller
> Let's do this bit-shuffling as a preliminary clean-up. These 2 patches can go on top of that as well. Thanks, Stefan Stefan Beller (2): xdiff/xdiff.h: remove unused flags xdiff/xdiffi.c: remove unneeded function declarations xdiff/xdiff.h | 8 xdiff/xdiffi.c | 17