Re: [PATCH v2] sequencer: fix edit handling for cherry-pick and revert messages
- From
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 31, 2021, 17:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CABPp-BGXW4=8Qb6w22mNCd8fuMs93Kztzavgdu7E--YkjMgmvQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <87mtujkyxb.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:36 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> > On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > In particular, for merge-ort, I think the second point is very > > helpful. What can achieve the "remove these now-unnecessary checks > > from the code for production, but keep them there for future > > development"? I thought assert() was created exactly for this > > purpose. Would you rather I created an affirm() that does essentially > > the same thing and is compiled out unless DEVELOPER=1? That would > > allow us to declare all assert() calls in the code as buggy, but I'm > > not sure affirm() is as readily understood by developers reading the > > code as "ooh, a reminder I get to assume these statements are true > > while I'm reading the rest of the code". > > I don't mind the asserts, or to have them in the default build. > > But if you'd like to submit patches for asserts and can't otherwise get > them accepted, then can we please not make DEVELOPER a thing that you > can't turn on in production without thinking twice? Per my > https://lore.kernel.org/git/87wnusj6gt.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/
Fair enough; if we have to go the affirm() route, I should probably just make it depend on NDEBUG. :-)