Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] replay: make atomic ref updates the default behavior

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 3, 2025, 07:30 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD1Z1waDT6jxYrfzxuEVz1Jnb2uwP7YbB4a6=AhmtLKcLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4a5eaefb-79cd-4b7b-ab3a-cbab648280f6@gmail.com>

Hi Siddharth,

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:16 AM Siddharth Asthana <siddharthasthana31@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Thanks for the detailed commit message review. You are absolutely right - I
> was mixing the patch rationale with v1→v2 changelog, which belongs in the
> cover letter.
>
> Your suggested framing about considering an --atomic-update option but
> rejecting it in favor of making it default is much clearer than my
> approach. I will use that structure.
>
> For v3:
> - Move all "since v1" discussion to cover letter
> - Use imperative mood ("Let's change" not "This patch changes")
> - Be explicit that --output-commands and --allow-partial are new options
> - Add full stops to the implementation details list
> - Will add Helped-by trailers for Elijah, Patrick and you ofcourse as
> suggested.

Great, I am looking forward to v3.

> Quick question: for the C89 compliance mention, should I drop it entirely
> or briefly note "uses 'int' instead of 'bool' for C89 compatibility"? I
> want to acknowledge the bool→int change but not belabor it.

There are 2 ways to look at this.

1) If you think it's a significant design decision to not use the
'bool' type, you should talk about it in the commit message, saying
something like:

"Using the 'bool' type for X was considered but rejected because Y."

where you replace "X" by the reasons why it could have been used, and "Y" by the reasons why that was rejected.

My opinion is that it's not a significant design decision but only a minor one, so I think it's better and simpler to just not talk about it in the commit message.

2) The other way to look at this is that it was a change from v1 to
v2. In this case it belongs to the cover letter in the section about
changes from v1 to v2 if any.

You don't necessarily need to include a section about changes from v1 to v2 in the cover letter for v3. Some do it, some don't. My opinion is that it's not very often useful, and readers can relatively easily refer to the cover letter for v2 (where it definitely should be) in the rare cases they really want to see it. So I would suggest talking only about the changes from v2 to v3 in the cover letter for v3.

To summarize, yeah, you can talk about it both in the commit message and in the cover letter if you really want to, but my opinion is that it's just not worth it.

Thanks for working on this!