Re: Threading bug due to a duplicated reference
* Mon Jul 25 2005 TAKAHASHI Tamotsu <ttakah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> * Sun Jul 24 2005 Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > I'm committing that patch for now; it seems not to have any adverse
> > consequences here.
>
> I don't object to you, but I want to know your idea about this:
> Well, my rm_dupref patch removes the _older_ one of duplicated refs.
> For example, mine makes a tree "a->b->c->b->d" to be "a->c->b->d".
> I'm unsure yours does the same (just because I don't have enough time
> to read the code for now). And I'm not sure "a->b->c->d" is worse.
> Which is the better? And which is the result of your patch?
>
> I'll test your patch someday soon.
I've done a simple test. Yours looks using "a->c->b->d".
Good. I'm satisfied.
--
tamo