Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Builtin FSMonitor Part 1

> 
> On Thu, Sep 23 2021, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
> 
>> On 9/23/21 10:33 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 20 2021, Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is V2 of Part 1 of my Builtin FSMonitor series.
>>>>
>>>> Changes since V1 include:
>>>>
>>>>    * Drop the Trace2 memory leak.
>>>>    * Added a new "child_ready" event to Trace2 as an alternative to the
>>>>      "child_exit" event for background processes.
>>>>    * Convert the Trace2-related NEEDSWORK items in "start_bg_command()" to use
>>>>      the new "child_ready" event.
>>>>    * Various minor code and documentation cleanups.
>>> I see 7/7 still has a pattern you included only to make a compiler
>>> error
>>> better. I noted in
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/87ilyycko3.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ that it
>>> make the error worse, on at least clang. You didn't note which compiler
>>> you were massaging, presumably MSVC.
>>>
>>
>> I've been holding my tongue for days on this issue and hoping a third
>> party would step in an render an opinion one way or another.
>>
>> Too me, a forward declaration seemed like no big deal and it does
>> have value as I tried to explain.  And frankly, it felt a little bit
>> like bike-shedding and was trying to avoid that again.
> 
> I agree with you that it's no big deal in the end,
> 
> I thought I made it clear in <87v92r49mt.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> but
> the main thing I'm commenting on is not that I or anyone else suggested
> Y over X, and you said nah and went for X in the end.
> 
> That's fine, I mean, depending on the comment/issue etc. it's something
> other reviewers & Junio can draw their own conclusions about.
> 
> What I am saying that it's much better for review of iterations of
> patches in general, and especially of a complex multi-part series if
> reviewers don't have to read the cover letter of vX and wonder what's
> omitted/unaddressed in the V(X-1) comments, and then go and re-read the
> discussion themselves. It's not the "nah", but that the "nah" is
> implicit and only apparent when sending an E-Mail like this.
> 
> Of course that's never perfect, you can't summarize every point
> etc. Personally I try to do this, but I've sometimes noticed after the
> fact that I've gotten it wrong etc.
> 
> In the end I and I think anyone else offering their time to review
> things is trying to move the relevant topic forward in one way or
> another. I'd much rather spend my time on a vX discussing new things &
> getting the thing closer to merge-able state, than re-reading all of
> v(X-1) & effectively coming up with my own cover letter summary in my
> head or in my own notes as I read along.
> 
> Anyway, sorry about the bikeshedding getting out of hand, and what seems
> to have been at least partially a misunderstanding in the last couple of
> E-Mails between us, but the above is all I was going for.