Re: [PATCH 2/8] revert: decouple sequencer actions from builtin commands
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 11, 2012, 13:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20120111131854.GG32173@burratino>
- In-Reply-To
- <CALkWK0kJpEXvBMV=D7h91sz7U2sLvXdW1UzomW0kG2bbM+byYA@mail.gmail.com>
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Once the > painful move to sequencer.c is completed, we can think about all these > things.
Honestly, moving code verbatim between files is very easy. Repeatedly rebasing a patch that carries out such a move would presumably be hard, though. But this pain is unnecessary!
Just like I haven't been reviewing the code movement, I'd be perfectly happy to read a "patch" that says
"And then we move the functions from the following list to sequencer.c. I'll send a patch doing so once work has settled down in patches earlier in this series."
Now you are telling me that in the super-final future my worries are valid, but I should forget about them today, because later in this series there is some code movement. That we need to get this painful part over with. I would be much more comforted if you said that in the future my worries were _not_ valid, that the current design is a good one, and that these patches are not making the program worse; otherwise, wouldn't it be better to skip whichever are the questionable patches and just carry out the code movement, which doesn't depend on them?