> > I anticipate that we need to have a lot of back pointers to the repository
> > in question, hence I think we should have the repository pointer promoted
> > to not just a back pointer.
>
> I will probably need more time to study that commit and maybe the mail
> archive for the history of this
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:31 PM Stefan Beller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:19 AM Brandon Williams wrote:
> >
> > On 07/27, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:40 AM Stefan Beller wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Currently the refs API takes a 'ref_store' as an argument to specify
>
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:19 AM Brandon Williams wrote:
>
> On 07/27, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:40 AM Stefan Beller wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently the refs API takes a 'ref_store' as an argument to specify
> > > which ref store to iterate over; however it is more useful to
On 07/27, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:40 AM Stefan Beller wrote:
> >
> > Currently the refs API takes a 'ref_store' as an argument to specify
> > which ref store to iterate over; however it is more useful to specify
> > the repository instead (or later a specific worktree of a
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:40 AM Stefan Beller wrote:
>
> Currently the refs API takes a 'ref_store' as an argument to specify
> which ref store to iterate over; however it is more useful to specify
> the repository instead (or later a specific worktree of a repository).
There is no 'later'.
Currently the refs API takes a 'ref_store' as an argument to specify
which ref store to iterate over; however it is more useful to specify
the repository instead (or later a specific worktree of a repository).
Introduce a new API, that takes a repository struct instead of a ref store;
the
6 matches
Mail list logo
