From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: john at keeping.me.uk (John Keeping)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:09:52 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] git: preview for v2.3.0-rc0
In-Reply-To: <20150113105739.1043e130@leda.localdomain>
References: <1421139407-15727-1-git-send-email-list@eworm.de>
 <20150113094353.GD26383@serenity.lan>
 <20150113105739.1043e130@leda.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20150113100952.GE26383@serenity.lan>

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:57:39AM +0100, Christian Hesse wrote:
> John Keeping <john at keeping.me.uk> on Tue, 2015/01/13 09:43:
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 09:56:47AM +0100, list at eworm.de wrote:
> > > From: Christian Hesse <mail at eworm.de>
> > > 
> > > * sort_string_list(): rename to string_list_sort() (upstream commit
> > > 3383e199)
> > > * update read_tree_recursive callback to pass strbuf as base (upstream
> > >   commit 6a0b0b6d)
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Hesse <mail at eworm.de>
> > > ---
> > > [...]
> > 
> > Is there any benefit to introducing a new function here?  In other
> > words, is walk_tree() used anywhere else?  If not, wouldn't it be
> > simpler to update the signature of the existing function?
> > 
> > (The same comment applies to several other places below.)
> 
> I just adopted the changes from git upstream to make things work. This is not
> intended for merge... And I will take a closer look for final patch when
> git v2.3.0 arrives. ;)
> 
> Our code include three functions called 'walk_tree()' in ui-plain.c,
> ui-blob.c and ui-tree.c. Can this bring any trouble?

They're all static so they're limited to the files in which they're
declared.  The names won't appear in the final binary at all (except in
debug annotations).