Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:
I would like to see the patch applied so the remote-svn series without
it gets shorter and easier to review. ;-) Munging the two context
lines ending with argv_array_clear(&importer_argv); to
free(fastimport.argv);
fastimport.argv = NULL;
makes this patch apply against master. Does it look ready for
application to you? If you'd like, I can send a copy rebased against
'master'.
No need for that; "git apply -3" as well as "git am -3" can grok
this just fine ;-)
quoted
+ /*
+ * If the remote helper advertised the "refspec" capability,
+ * it will have the written result of the import to the refs
perhaps s/will have the written result of/would have written result of/?
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
+ /*
+ * If the remote helper advertised the "refspec" capability,
+ * it will have the written result of the import to the refs
perhaps s/will have the written result of/would have written result of/?
That would sound like 'If the remote helper advertised the "refspec"
capability, it would have written the result of the import to the
refs, but it didn't, so...', so I think "will" is the right tense.
But 'will have the written' is awkward. How about:
* The fast-import stream of a remote helper advertising the
* "refspec" capability writes to the refs named after the right
* hand side of the first refspec matching each ref we were
* fetching.
*
* (If no "refspec" capability is specified, for historical
* reasons the default is *:*.)
*
* Store the result in to_fetch[i].old_sha1. [...]
On Monday 30 July 2012 14:15:53 Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
+ /*
+ * If the remote helper advertised the "refspec" capability,
+ * it will have the written result of the import to the refs
perhaps s/will have the written result of/would have written result of/?
That would sound like 'If the remote helper advertised the "refspec"
capability, it would have written the result of the import to the
refs, but it didn't, so...', so I think "will" is the right tense.
But 'will have the written' is awkward. How about:
Yes, thats clearly a typing error of mine, 'the' is to be deleted.
* The fast-import stream of a remote helper advertising the
* "refspec" capability writes to the refs named after the right
* hand side of the first refspec matching each ref we were
* fetching.
*
* (If no "refspec" capability is specified, for historical
* reasons the default is *:*.)
*
* Store the result in to_fetch[i].old_sha1. [...]