On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:18:10PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Kirill Smelkov k...@mns.spb.ru writes:
via teaching tree_entry_pathcmp() how to compare empty tree descriptors:
Drop this line, as you explain the pretend empty compares bigger
than anything else idea later anyway? This
Kirill Smelkov k...@navytux.spb.ru writes:
static int tree_entry_pathcmp(struct tree_desc *t1, struct tree_desc *t2)
{
struct name_entry *e1, *e2;
int cmp;
+ if (!t1-size)
+ return t2-size ? +1 /* +∞ c */ : 0 /* +∞ = +∞ */;
+ else if (!t2-size)
+
Kirill Smelkov k...@navytux.spb.ru writes:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:18:10PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Kirill Smelkov k...@mns.spb.ru writes:
via teaching tree_entry_pathcmp() how to compare empty tree descriptors:
Drop this line, as you explain the pretend empty compares bigger
Kirill Smelkov k...@mns.spb.ru writes:
via teaching tree_entry_pathcmp() how to compare empty tree descriptors:
Drop this line, as you explain the pretend empty compares bigger
than anything else idea later anyway? This early part of the
proposed log message made me hiccup while reading it.
via teaching tree_entry_pathcmp() how to compare empty tree descriptors:
While walking trees, we iterate their entries from lowest to highest in
sort order, so empty tree means all entries were already went over.
If we artificially assign +infinity value to such tree entry, it will
go after all
5 matches
Mail list logo
