From: Okhuomon Ajayi <okhuomonajayi54@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 18:14:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [Outreachy] patch-ids: fix const correctness
Message-ID: <CAFpMFfAHA8OfVXKVVSSAQ5p+B8ngT3p54on1HpM+n2qs3P1rHA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqzf9u1zix.fsf@gitster.g>

Hi Junio,

Thanks for explaining! I get it now the NEEDSWORK comment isn’t needed
since the hashmap API is supposed to have cmpfn_data as const. I’ve
removed the comment and didn’t change anything else

Cheers

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 6:29 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Okhuomon Ajayi <okhuomonajayi54@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I’ll revert my local change, run a build and tests, and then think
> > about safer alternatives (or leave the NEEDSWORK comment in place if
> > changing the hashmap API isn’t appropriate).
> > Thanks for the clarification.
>
> If you can convince readers that changing the hashmap API is not
> appropriate, then I would think that would make a great explanation
> for a commit that removes the needswork comment without doing
> anything else.  "Thinking about const correctness issues around this
> code is no longer needed.  The hashmap API is right to insist that
> the extra data pointer must be const because ....  Which makes
> casting constness away when assigning it to opt, which is what the
> code is, is indeed the only reasonable thing to do, and there is no
> more change necessary around here."  Of course, such a commit log
> message must fill in the "because ..." part with a convincing
> argument ;-).
>
> Thanks.
>
>