Version 4 of the patch series to cleanup the duplicate name_compare()
functions.
The previous patch series would have left the system in a broken state
if only part of the patches were applied. This version condenses all
the patches in to a single working patch as Jonathan Nieder suggested [1].
Both unpack-trees.c and read-cache.c have their own name_compare()
function, which are identical. And read-cache.c has a
cache_name_compare() function which is nearly identical to
name_compare() [1]. The cache_name_compare() function is not specific
to a cache, other than by being part of
Jeremiah Mahler jmmah...@gmail.com writes:
Both unpack-trees.c and read-cache.c have their own name_compare()
function, which are identical. And read-cache.c has a
cache_name_compare() function which is nearly identical to
name_compare() [1]. The cache_name_compare() function is not
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
You chose to use the one that loses the information by unifying
these two into the variant that only returns -1/0/+1. We know that
it does not matter for the current callers, but is it expected that
no future callers
Junio,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:03:03AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeremiah Mahler jmmah...@gmail.com writes:
Both unpack-trees.c and read-cache.c have their own name_compare()
function, which are identical. And read-cache.c has a
cache_name_compare() function which is nearly
Junio,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:29:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
You chose to use the one that loses the information by unifying
these two into the variant that only returns -1/0/+1. We know that
it does not
6 matches
Mail list logo
