From: Okhuomon Ajayi <okhuomonajayi54@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 21:55:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [Outreachy] patch-ids: fix const correctness
Message-ID: <CAFpMFfCXy_R1iHmDDo3Zr4rhCpVukSqSsdZ+ycEfj=_6Q45vAw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqo6qa1wjg.fsf@gitster.g>

Got it, that helps. I'll take a closer look at how const is handled
across the hashmap API before removing the NEEDSWORK comment. Thanks
for the guidance!

By the way, I also sent another patch about clarifying the SHA1 usage
for patch IDs. Would you mind taking a look when you have a moment?


On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 7:33 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Okhuomon Ajayi <okhuomonajayi54@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > 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
>
> The NEEDSWORK comment is about going even further, starting from
> question if hashmap should really be using "const" in the first
> place, to sort things out among all the components involved
> (including other users of the hashmap API).
>
> A commit that does not do the necessary study and just removes the
> needswork comment is simply irresponsible, no?
>