Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

merkledag: remove Batch #2360

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

mildred
Copy link
Contributor

@mildred mildred commented Feb 18, 2016

The Batch function from the DagService was not used. Remove it to simplify
code and allow IPLD implementation to take the place of merkledag.

The Batch function from the DagService was not used. Remove it to simplify
code and allow IPLD implementation to take the place of merkledag.
@GitCop
Copy link

GitCop commented Feb 18, 2016

There were the following issues with your Pull Request

  • Commit: af1070d
    • Invalid signoff. Commit message must end with
      License: MIT
      Signed-off-by: .* <.*>

We ask for a few features in the commit message for Open Source licensing hygiene and commit message clarity.
git commit --amend can often help you quickly improve the commit message.
Guidelines and a script are available to help in the long run.
Your feedback on GitCop is welcome on this issue.


This message was auto-generated by https://gitcop.com

@mildred
Copy link
Contributor Author

mildred commented Feb 18, 2016

If we want to keep this code around, we can split the Batch object from the DagService and make it independent.

@hackergrrl
Copy link
Contributor

Nice! Happy to see dead code go.

@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

thats less dead code and more "unfinished", but i agree that we can split it out from the DagService when we get around to finishing that

@mildred
Copy link
Contributor Author

mildred commented Feb 20, 2016

I don't believe any longer this is necessary to remove. Perhaps the good thing to do instead would be to make it a standalone service that makes uses of the DAGService. Also, does it makes sense to have the Batch service where we already have a GetMany implemented in #2384?

@mildred mildred closed this Feb 20, 2016
@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

👍 sounds good to me!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants