Re: [PATCH 4/8] git-repack --max-pack-size: add fixup_header_footer()

> On Tue, 1 May 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> > Dana How <danahow@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 4/30/07, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> > > > Why not
> > > > refactor both to use the same implementation and stuff it away in
> > > > say pack-check.c (for lack of a better place), or start a new file
> > > > (pack-write.c)?
> > > Actually I didn't just copy it, I tried to rewrite it for my use
> > > as well as the fast-import.c use (note there is a 3rd copy
> > > in some *index*.c file which I didn't try to merge in yet).
> > > However I didn't yet put it in a new file or change fast-import.c
> > > to call it since I wanted to change as little as possible.
> > ...
> > > I agree with all your arguments.  I had several reasons
> > > to avoid extra rearrangements/refactorings:
> > > (a) First patch to git, not previously known to me;
> > > (b) I prefer to separate new functionality from "clean-up" work;
> >
> > A really good reason.  ;-)
> >
> > But I'd still rather see it done right the first time, then done
> > partially (copied) and wait for someone to clean it up later.
> > Sometimes that cleanup doesn't happen.
>
> Well I intended to do more cleanups in the pack code eventually.  That
> included the index writing and pack header fixing.  But I was expecting
> for the pack splitting changes to go in first as it is likely to impose
> some requirements of its own. It is then easier to have a proper
> interface common to all users after everything is in place.

> > > I'd have no problem submitting a follow-on patch later containing
> > > some clean-up work if you & NP clear it, so I know I won't have
> > > problems from (d).  Note I had to completely rewrite this patch
> > > when NP submitted some of his pending stuff.
> >
> > Yea, hazard of working in this part of the code when Nico is
> > also active.  My own sliding mmap stuff was written twice too,
> > for the same reason - Nico doing much needed improvements right in
> > the same spot as I was working, at the same time.
>
> Well well.  OK I'm used to be considered as the bad guy anyway.  ;-)