{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/krb5/krb5/issues/510","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/krb5/krb5","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/krb5/krb5/issues/510/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/krb5/krb5/issues/510/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/krb5/krb5/issues/510/events","html_url":"https://github.com/krb5/krb5/pull/510","id":170764969,"number":510,"title":"Restore recursive dump","user":{"login":"tlyu","id":431873,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/431873?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/tlyu","html_url":"https://github.com/tlyu","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tlyu/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tlyu/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tlyu/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tlyu/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tlyu/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tlyu/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tlyu/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tlyu/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/tlyu/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":5,"created_at":"2016-08-11T22:48:12Z","updated_at":"2016-08-15T16:52:06Z","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/krb5/krb5/pulls/510","html_url":"https://github.com/krb5/krb5/pull/510","diff_url":"https://github.com/krb5/krb5/pull/510.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/krb5/krb5/pull/510.patch"},"body":"There's no automated test case for a KDB, but there is one for the lower layer libdb. Some of the bugfix commits could be squashed after review."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/krb5/krb5/issues/comments/239857966","html_url":"https://github.com/krb5/krb5/pull/510#issuecomment-239857966","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/krb5/krb5/issues/510","id":239857966,"user":{"login":"greghudson","id":1131421,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1131421?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/greghudson","html_url":"https://github.com/greghudson","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/greghudson/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/greghudson/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/greghudson/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/greghudson/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/greghudson/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/greghudson/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/greghudson/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/greghudson/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/greghudson/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-08-15T16:52:06Z","updated_at":"2016-08-15T16:52:06Z","body":"Commit ~9 (EINTR handling): it looks okay for what it does.  I still don't quite understand the problem being solved; I tried writing a simple test program using fgets and attaching to it with lldb, but I couldn't produce any bad behavior.\r\n\r\nCommit ~8 (string printing): in the commit message, 'format specifiers such as \"%.*s\"' is unnecessarily wishy-washy, as \"%.*s\" is the one and only format specifier used in new lines of code.  The code changes look okay.\r\n\r\nCommit ~7 (exports): in the commit message, \"On platforms that have use\" contains the extra word \"have\".  The code changes look okay.\r\n\r\nCommit ~6 (void return): Looks good.\r\n\r\nCommit ~5 (MPOOL_IGNOREPIN): in the commit message, \"use the MPOOL_IGNOREPIN to\" is missing the word \"flag\".  The commit message only describes the mpool.c change, not the bttest changes.  The mpool.c change looks okay.  I assume the bttest changes are okay too, but I don't have the context to know why setting MPOOL_IGNOREPIN is necessary and why not calling mpool_put() is desirable.\r\n\r\nCommit ~4 (refactor recursive traversal): in the commit message, \"flags R_RNEXT (...) and R_RPREV instead of ...\" is awkward because \"instead of\" intuitively applies only to R_RPREV.  I would just remove the \"instead of\" clause since it's pretty clear from the above text.  In the last paragraph, I would note that the existing rlist command in bttest is fixed up to use the new interface.  The code changes look okay.\r\n\r\nCommit ~3 (bttest unlink): in the commit message, the sentence \"This new bttest command...\" has a grammatical structure issue.  The final paragraph should use a comma instead of \"and\".  In the code changes, the comment \"Find a candidate page to ulink\" should say \"unlink\".  candidatepg() can be slightly simplified by returning directly from the loop (return NULL if mpool_get() returns NULL, return h intsead of breaking later, return NULL after the loop).  The code changes otherwise look okay.\r\n\r\nCommit ~2 (test case): this looks okay.\r\n\r\nCommit ~1 (curs_init errors): as before, this looks okay.\r\n\r\nHead commit (restore recursive dump): this looks okay, but I would expect it to have an associated ticket."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"greghudson"}}