Hi Daniel,
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> > That patch is still an RFC, and it's unlikely to be approved soon I
> > think. If I were able to send a series, it would roughly look like
> > this:
> > 1. Create parse_dumpstream3 to include the logic for checking equality
> > in version.
> > 2. Note the lack of flexibility in 1, and create a new struct (the
> > other patch).
> > 3. Modify parse_dumpstream3 to use the new struct, and move out the
> > logic for checking the version into a fresh callback.
> >
> > > Note: it's acceptable to post patches that depend on previous patches.
> > > (So you could write this patch in terms of parse_fns3_t directly.)
>
> So we first create parse_dumpstream3() and then fix it a second later?
> I'd rather just revv the parse_fns3_t API (with "the other patch") and
> then touch parse_dumpstream3() once. Does that make sense to you?
Okay, got it. I'll post a series soon.
-- Ram
Received on 2010-08-20 07:29:23 CEST