[PATCH v2 00/13] Reference iterators

2016-06-03 Thread Michael Haggerty
This is v2 of a patch series to implement iteration over references via iterators. Thanks to Ramsay, Eric, Junio, and David for their feedback about v1 [1]. I think I have addressed all of the points that were raised. Changes from v1 -> v2: * In "refs: introduce an iterator interface": * Fix s

Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] Reference iterators

2016-06-03 Thread David Turner
On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 14:33 +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > This is v2 of a patch series to implement iteration over references > via iterators. Thanks to Ramsay, Eric, Junio, and David for their > feedback about v1 [1]. I think I have addressed all of the points > that > were raised. In case I d

Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] Reference iterators

2016-06-03 Thread Junio C Hamano
Michael Haggerty writes: > This patch series applies on top of mh/split-under-lock. It can also > be obtained from my GitHub repo [2] as branch "ref-iterators". Ah, that reminds me. What's the doneness of the dependent topic? The patches in this series looked all good to me. > Michael > > [1

Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] Reference iterators

2016-06-03 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 06/03/2016 11:33 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Haggerty writes: > >> This patch series applies on top of mh/split-under-lock. It can also >> be obtained from my GitHub repo [2] as branch "ref-iterators". > > Ah, that reminds me. What's the doneness of the dependent topic? If you mean

Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] Reference iterators

2016-06-03 Thread Junio C Hamano
Michael Haggerty writes: > On 06/03/2016 11:33 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Michael Haggerty writes: >> >>> This patch series applies on top of mh/split-under-lock. It can also >>> be obtained from my GitHub repo [2] as branch "ref-iterators". >> >> Ah, that reminds me. What's the doneness of

Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] Reference iterators

2016-06-07 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 06/04/2016 01:40 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Haggerty writes: > >> On 06/03/2016 11:33 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> [...] >>> Ah, that reminds me. What's the doneness of the dependent topic? >> [...] > > What I meant was the doneness of mh/split-under-lock actually. I don't know of