From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17286 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2016 09:13:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 39790 Received: (qmail 22068 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2016 09:13:17 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from smtprelay02.ispgateway.de by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(80.67.31.36):SA:0(0.0/5.0):. Processed in 0.439184 secs); 31 Oct 2016 09:13:17 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: ft@bewatermyfriend.org X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at bewatermyfriend.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) From: Frank Terbeck To: Daniel Shahaf Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix hexdump command used for mercurial dirstate parsing In-Reply-To: <20161030203314.GA4276@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> (Daniel Shahaf's message of "Sun, 30 Oct 2016 20:33:14 +0000") References: <20161030024723.62832-1-john.reed.riley@gmail.com> <87y416drcq.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <20161030155530.GC12137@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <20161030170534.GA17437@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <161030112832.ZM14753@torch.brasslantern.com> <20161030203314.GA4276@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:04:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87pomgevp8.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Df-Sender: NDMwNDQ0 Hi, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > - && ( VCS_INFO_check_com hexdump ) && [[ -r ${dirstatefile} ]] ; then > + && VCS_INFO_hexdump ${dirstatefile} 20 ; then > # Calling hexdump is (much) faster than hg but doesn't get the local rev While we're at it, that comment should probably be adjusted as well, since we don't really *call* hexdump any more. Regards, Frank