"Martin Langhoff" [off-list ref] writes:
Jeff,
good stuff -- aiming at exactly the things that had been nagging me.
Some minor notes on top of what junio's mentioned...
quoted
+ die "unable to open $f: $!" unless $! == POSIX::ENOENT;
+ return undef;
Heh. Is that the return of the living dead?
Note the trailing "unless" there.
quoted
+sub update_index (\@\@) {
+ my $old = shift;
+ my $new = shift;
Would it not make more sense to just pass them as plain parameters?
Meaning...? Perl5 can pass only one flat array, so the above is
a standard way to pass two arrays.
quoted
+ print "Committed patch $patchset ($branch $commit_date)\n" if
Given that we have that -- should we remember it and avoid re-reading
the headref from disk? A %seenheads cache would save us 99.9% of the
hassle.
In related news, I've dealt with file reads from the socket being
memorybound. Should merge ok.
Merged OK, and I think your last suggestion makes sense. I'll
go to bed after pushing out Jeff's two patches and yours.
On 5/23/06, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
"Martin Langhoff" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Jeff,
good stuff -- aiming at exactly the things that had been nagging me.
Some minor notes on top of what junio's mentioned...
quoted
+ die "unable to open $f: $!" unless $! == POSIX::ENOENT;
+ return undef;
Heh. Is that the return of the living dead?
Note the trailing "unless" there.
Of course. I had actually missed the closing quotes, and thought the
error msg wanted to talk about POSIX. 'twas late in the day, seems
like most of my comments in this email were rather stoopid.
quoted
quoted
+sub update_index (\@\@) {
+ my $old = shift;
+ my $new = shift;
Would it not make more sense to just pass them as plain parameters?
Meaning...? Perl5 can pass only one flat array, so the above is
a standard way to pass two arrays.
Meaning I am stupid :(
quoted
quoted
+ print "Committed patch $patchset ($branch $commit_date)\n" if
Given that we have that -- should we remember it and avoid re-reading
the headref from disk? A %seenheads cache would save us 99.9% of the
hassle.
In related news, I've dealt with file reads from the socket being
memorybound. Should merge ok.
Merged OK, and I think your last suggestion makes sense. I'll
go to bed after pushing out Jeff's two patches and yours.
I'll look into caching headrefs tonight if noone beats me to it.
martin