Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix a refname trimming problem in `log --bisect`

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 19, 2017, 16:05 UTC
Message-ID: <20170619160551.cdw3eslu7ehiivh2@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqo9tkt1qz.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 08:51:00AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 03:39:40PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> >
> >> As before, the second patch is optional. If it is omitted, it might
> >> flush out any other bugs like this one in client code. If it is
> >> included, regressions are less likely, but we won't learn about other
> >> misuses of the API. I have no strong opinion either way.
> >
> > My feeling is still slightly towards "don't include", but I also don't
> > have a strong opinion.
> 
> I am inclined to the "don't include 2/2 and cook 1/2 alone but a bit
> longer" approach.

I don't think it helps to cook 1/2 longer. The assertion that triggered is already in master. Patch 1 fixes one case in an obviously-correct way. Patch 2 is just about guessing whether _other_ cases may trigger.

So if we wanted to cook longer we'd have to revert b9c8e7f2f (prefix_ref_iterator: don't trim too much, 2017-05-22), but I don't think that's worth doing.

-Peff