On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 08:35:00AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 05/03/2014 10:12 PM, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > I called the structure member "oid" because it was easily grepable and
> > distinct from the rest of the codebase. It, too, can be changed if we
> > decide on a better name. I s
Am 04.05.2014 08:35, schrieb Michael Haggerty:
On 05/03/2014 10:12 PM, brian m. carlson wrote:
I specifically did not choose "sha1" since it
looks weird to have "sha1->sha1" and I didn't want to rename lots of
variables.
That means that we will have sha1->oid all over the place, right?
Only
On 05/03/2014 10:12 PM, brian m. carlson wrote:
> This is a preliminary RFC patch series to move all the relevant uses of
> unsigned char [20] to struct object_id. It should not be applied to any
> branch yet.
>
> The goal of this series to improve type-checking in the codebase and to
> make it e
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 08:12:13PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> This is a preliminary RFC patch series to move all the relevant uses of
> unsigned char [20] to struct object_id. It should not be applied to any
> branch yet.
>
> The goal of this series to improve type-checking in the codebase
This is a preliminary RFC patch series to move all the relevant uses of
unsigned char [20] to struct object_id. It should not be applied to any
branch yet.
The goal of this series to improve type-checking in the codebase and to
make it easier to move to a different hash function if the project
de
5 matches
Mail list logo
