Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Lazy-load trees when reading commit-graph

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 9, 2018, 13:15 UTC
Message-ID: <7930c9bf-4f24-2e76-b522-331a2e9ed5d5@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr2np70dl.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On 4/8/2018 7:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> If I were doing it myself, I probably would have folded patches 1 and 3
>> together. They are touching all the same spots, and it would be an error
>> for any case converted in patch 1 to not get converted in patch 3. I'm
>> assuming you caught them all due to Coccinelle, though IMHO it is
>> somewhat overkill here. By folding them together the compiler could tell
>> you which spots you missed.
> Yeah, that approach would probably be a more sensible way to assure
> the safety/correctness of the result to readers better.

I don't understand how folding the patches makes the correctness clearer, since the rename (1/4) is checked by the compiler and the Coccinelle script (3/4) only works after that rename is complete.

The only thing I can imagine is that it makes smaller patch emails, since there is only one large patch instead of two. In this case, I prefer to make changes that are easier to check by automation (compiler and coccinelle).

However, I will defer to the experts in this regard. If a v3 is necessary, then I will fold the commits together.

Thanks, -Stolee