Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] getting rid of most "static struct lock_file"s

On 10 May 2018 at 08:01, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > >> I don't think it's worth re-rolling, but one thing to think about for >> future cleanups: you split the patches by touched area, not by >> functionality. So the first three patches have a

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] getting rid of most "static struct lock_file"s

Jeff King writes: > I don't think it's worth re-rolling, but one thing to think about for > future cleanups: you split the patches by touched area, not by > functionality. So the first three patches have a "while we're here..." > that has to explain why dropping the "static" is

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] getting rid of most "static struct lock_file"s

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 10:55:34PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote: > This is take two of my attempt at making almost all `struct lock_file`s > non-static. All patches have been equipped with more detailed commit > messages. The only diff that has changed is patch 3/5, where I now take > a small step

[PATCH v2 0/5] getting rid of most "static struct lock_file"s

This is take two of my attempt at making almost all `struct lock_file`s non-static. All patches have been equipped with more detailed commit messages. The only diff that has changed is patch 3/5, where I now take a small step towards gentle error-handling, rather than going in the opposite