Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:28:14AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
Curiously, the reference of the message points at the cover letter
of this series, and there is no mention of a message from early last
December.
I think this is good. These "conflict IDs" are not even object
names, so it would be strange to use "struct object_id" for them
(for that matter, packfile ids are not object names, either, but I
suspect we might use object_id there).
If there were a patch that can readily applied ;-)
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:38:31PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:28:14AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
Curiously, the reference of the message points at the cover letter
of this series, and there is no mention of a message from early last
December.
I think that is the author-date generated by format-patch, since that's
when I originally wrote it. I generally format the messages into an
mbox, load that in mutt, and then use mutt's "bounce" feature to send
them, which rewrites the date header. In this case, though, I somehow
accidentally hit "reply" (more astounding is that I didn't notice it as
I was sending; I think I might be getting senile).
I think this is good. These "conflict IDs" are not even object
names, so it would be strange to use "struct object_id" for them
(for that matter, packfile ids are not object names, either, but I
suspect we might use object_id there).
I suspected that, too, but when I checked I couldn't find any instance
where we do. I might not have looked hard enough, or perhaps whoever
converted the pack code had better taste than me (see the similar use of
object_id in the previous patch).
If there were a patch that can readily applied ;-)
Yep, see my reply. :)
-Peff