Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2018, #03; Fri, 14)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 17, 2018, 18:22 UTC
Message-ID: <20180917182210.GB3894@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqo9cw6mhk.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:51:35AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> >> >  What's the donness of this one?
> >> >  cf. <20180717201348.GD26218@sigill.intra.peff.net>
> >> 
> >> This topic has stayed in 'pu' for a long time. I thought it was
> >> concluded that this was a good change? Jeff, Jonathan?
> >
> > I read over the thread again. I don't think I actually have any
> > complaints about the patches as-is. There was some discussion from Junio
> > and Ævar about the third one. I don't have a strong opinion. My
> > experience has been that "gc --auto" is garbage anyway on the server
> > side, but I think Ævar's experience is that it's reasonable for small to
> > medium sites (which seems plausible to me).
> >
> > The message-id quoted there is my "this looks good". I mentioned a few
> > possible nits, but I think it would be OK with or without them
> > addressed.
> 
> That matches my reading of your position.  I tend to agree with
> Ævar's recommendation to postpone 3/3 and use 1 & 2 for now.

Let me inject some more uncertainty, then. ;)

If we are not going to do 3/3, then should 2/3 simply avoid passing "-1" back via return from main? I guess I don't have a strong opinion, but one of the things I noted was that we converted those die() calls introduced in 2/3 back into returns in 3/3. Do we want to leave it in the state where we are calling die() a lot more?

-Peff