Pierre Habouzit [off-list ref] writes:
[PATCH 1/3] janitor: use NULL and not 0 for pointers.
I really dislike the use of 0 when NULL is meant. This patch probably
fixes most of them. The biggest culprit is nedmalloc, but a few
remnants exist in plain git code.
I am not enthused about "fixing" borrowed foreign code, unless we know
that we are committed to support our fork. My impression was that this
ned stuff was borrowed by the MinGW folks with the understanding that we
will slurp it with minimum modification and turn a blind eye to its
sub-par coding styles, so that it can be more easily updated from the
upstream?
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 03:00:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
[PATCH 1/3] janitor: use NULL and not 0 for pointers.
I really dislike the use of 0 when NULL is meant. This patch probably
fixes most of them. The biggest culprit is nedmalloc, but a few
remnants exist in plain git code.
I am not enthused about "fixing" borrowed foreign code, unless we know
that we are committed to support our fork. My impression was that this
ned stuff was borrowed by the MinGW folks with the understanding that we
will slurp it with minimum modification and turn a blind eye to its
sub-par coding styles, so that it can be more easily updated from the
upstream?
Okay, maybe the 2-3 hunks that don't apply to nedmalloc stuff can be
saved though, do you want me to send an updated patch ?
--
Intersec <http://www.intersec.com>
Pierre Habouzit [off-list ref]
Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346
Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131
Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332
37 Rue Pierre Lhomme
92400 Courbevoie
Hi,
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
[PATCH 1/3] janitor: use NULL and not 0 for pointers.
I really dislike the use of 0 when NULL is meant. This patch probably
fixes most of them. The biggest culprit is nedmalloc, but a few
remnants exist in plain git code.
I am not enthused about "fixing" borrowed foreign code, unless we know
that we are committed to support our fork. My impression was that this
ned stuff was borrowed by the MinGW folks with the understanding that we
will slurp it with minimum modification and turn a blind eye to its
sub-par coding styles, so that it can be more easily updated from the
upstream?
Indeed. Maintaining msysGit is enough of a burden already (and I do not
often get to do fun stuff anymore). So I really appreciate your concern
here.
Ciao,
Dscho