fetch-object.h: add missing declaration (hdr-check)

Commit Message

Ramsay Jones Sept. 19, 2018, 12:18 a.m. UTC

Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <[e-mail]>
---

Hi Junio,

This is the patch I needed for the current 'next' branch to get
a clean 'hdr-check'

ATB,
Ramsay Jones

 fetch-object.h | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comments

Junio C Hamano Sept. 21, 2018, 4:21 p.m. UTC | #1

Ramsay Jones <[e-mail]> writes:

> Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <[e-mail]>
> ---
>
> Hi Junio,
>
> This is the patch I needed for the current 'next' branch to get
> a clean 'hdr-check'

Which means that this is a fix on top of jt/lazy-object-fetch-fix
topic, I think.

Will apply there.

Thanks.

Ramsay Jones Sept. 21, 2018, 4:47 p.m. UTC | #2

On 21/09/18 17:21, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramsay Jones <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <[e-mail]>
>> ---
>>
>> Hi Junio,
>>
>> This is the patch I needed for the current 'next' branch to get
>> a clean 'hdr-check'
> 
> Which means that this is a fix on top of jt/lazy-object-fetch-fix
> topic, I think.
> 
> Will apply there.

Yes, indeed. Sorry, I should have added that information, rather
than forcing you to look it up! (Similar comment on the userdiff.h
patch as well) :(

BTW, I notice that patch #9 (commit-reach.h: add missing declarations
 (hdr-check)) didn't make it onto 'pu' - was there something else I
needed to do? (I am still in two minds about sending an RFC patch
on-top of patch #9).

Thanks!

ATB,
Ramsay Jones

Junio C Hamano Sept. 21, 2018, 5:05 p.m. UTC | #3

Ramsay Jones <[e-mail]> writes:

> BTW, I notice that patch #9 (commit-reach.h: add missing declarations
>  (hdr-check)) didn't make it onto 'pu' - was there something else I
> needed to do? (I am still in two minds about sending an RFC patch
> on-top of patch #9).

I refrained from queuing it as I did not sense a clear resolution of
the discussion.

I found it a sign that you may want to update the log message to
explain "instead of adding a few forward decls, include the whole
commit.h because..." that you had to explain why the patch did what
it did to Derrick in a follow-up message.

Derrick Stolee Sept. 21, 2018, 5:40 p.m. UTC | #4

On 9/21/2018 1:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramsay Jones <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> BTW, I notice that patch #9 (commit-reach.h: add missing declarations
>>   (hdr-check)) didn't make it onto 'pu' - was there something else I
>> needed to do? (I am still in two minds about sending an RFC patch
>> on-top of patch #9).
> I refrained from queuing it as I did not sense a clear resolution of
> the discussion.
>
> I found it a sign that you may want to update the log message to
> explain "instead of adding a few forward decls, include the whole
> commit.h because..." that you had to explain why the patch did what
> it did to Derrick in a follow-up message.

Also my fault for not saying "That's a good reason, thanks for 
explaining!" (I'll add that to the necessary thread.)

-Stolee

Patch

diff --git a/fetch-object.h b/fetch-object.h
index d2f996d4e8..d6444caa5a 100644
--- a/fetch-object.h
+++ b/fetch-object.h
@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ 
 #ifndef FETCH_OBJECT_H
 #define FETCH_OBJECT_H
 
+struct object_id;
+
 void fetch_objects(const char *remote_name, const struct object_id *oids,
 		   int oid_nr);