Re: [PATCH 03/10] fast-export: store anonymized oids as hex strings

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 30, 2020, 19:35 UTC
Message-ID: <20200630193548.GB1889576@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006291513330.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 03:17:00PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> > TBH, that does not seem like that compelling a reason to me to keep it
> > around. If no compiler is complaining of C99 for-loop declarations, then
> > maybe we should consider loosening our style. Or are we trying to be
> > kind of some unknown set of platform-specific compilers that we can't
> > feasibly hit in our CI?
> 
> FWIW _iff_ we decide to loosen our style, I would like to propose doing it
> in one place first, and keep it that way for two or three major versions.
> 
> Traditionally, people stuck on platforms such as IRIX or HP/UX with
> proprietary C compilers (and remember: I once was one of those people)
> often lack the luxury of upgrading frequently. And if it turns out that we
> want to revert the style-loosening, it is much easier to do it in one
> place than in many.

Yeah, I definitely agree that would be the way to do it. I admit I don't even _really_ care that much about allowing the feature. More that it might not be worth trying to crack down on it so aggressively, and just letting it get picked up by review (or if it slips through, letting the poor souls stuck on HP/UX complain).

(And I say "worth" because now the use of gcc 4.8 as the checking tool has demonstrably cost a bunch of human time, so it comes with a cost).

-Peff