On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:06 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 07:53:02PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 04:33:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> > A flag to affect the behaviour (as opposed to &flag as a secondary
>> > return value, like Peff's patch does)
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Shawn Pearce wrote:
>
>> and from what I can tell, the 'maski' value is always 0, so the
>> looping over 80 state masks is really just a loop over two.
>
> Actually, look closer at that loop:
No, sorry, I wasn't clear and took some shortcuts in writing that made
You can also keep me in this thread, so we can help or answer any
further questions,
but I also appreciate the feedback on our project.
Like Dan Shumow said, our main focus on the library has been correctness
and then performance.
The entire files ubc_check.c and ubc_check.h are generated based on
Jonathan Tan writes:
> When the --objects argument is given to rev-list, an argument of the
> form "^$tree" can be given to exclude all blobs and trees reachable from
> that tree, but an argument of the form "^$commit" only excludes that
> commit, not any blob or tree reachable from it. Make "^$c
Hi René,
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 28.02.2017 um 21:54 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > > René Scharfe writes:
> > >
> > > > Am 28.02.2017 um 15:28 schrieb Jeff King:
> > > >
> > > > > It looks from the discussion like th
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:53:28AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Linus Torvalds writes:
>
> > That
> > actually can clean up some code, because right now we have duplicate
> > interfaces for some things that take an oid pointer and others take a
> > "const unsigned char *sha1", and that duplicat
Jeff King writes:
> ... We can certainly stick with it for now (it's awkward if you
> really do have an entry on Jan 1 1970, but other than that it's an OK
> marker). I agree that the most negatively value is probably a saner
> choice, but we can switch to it after the dust settles.
I was trying
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Marc Stevens wrote:
>
> Because we only have 32 disturbance vectors to check, we have DVMASKSIZE
> equal to 1 and maski always 0.
> In the more general case when we add disturbance vectors this will not
> remain the case.
Ok, I didn't get why that happened, but it
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:19 PM, brian m. carlson
wrote:
>
> The bigger issue is the assumptions in the code base that assume a given
> hash size.
Absolutely. And I think those are going to be the "real" patches.
I actually saw your status report about
"After another 27 commits, I've got it
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:33:55AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> And having said all that, if we really want to allow overlong
> subject prefix that would end up hiding the real title of the patch,
> a modern way to do so would be to use xstrfmt() like the attached
> toy-patch does.
If you are g
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:12:32 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Put sha1dc on a diet
This removes the unnecessary parts of the sha1dc code, shrinking things from
[torvalds@i7 git]$ size sha1dc/*.o
textdata bss dec hex filename
277559 6
Am 01.03.2017 um 00:10 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
Hi René,
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, René Scharfe wrote:
Am 28.02.2017 um 21:54 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
René Scharfe writes:
Am 28.02.2017 um 15:28 schrieb Jeff King:
It looks from the discuss
Am 28.02.2017 um 21:54 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
Hi Junio,
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
René Scharfe writes:
Am 28.02.2017 um 15:28 schrieb Jeff King:
It looks from the discussion like the sanest path forward is our own
signed-64bit timestamp_t. That's unfortunate compare
101 - 113 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
