Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] worktree: sync worktree paths after gitdir move

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Oct 6, 2024, 22:48 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cTKjebbpuy-SCLWd0QMKfHhRyJ81oESNjsUoPDLLNpNWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YYay6Jp5c84h3Tx-LViX4teN5KSBX5PL3_WcOFRzUooFrpJpcBD2SRWf1EQjvrMZsI6zkKyPd7JbWt3Ed3OIxCdkg17fY2qvmT4-B6a0RAE=@pm.me>

On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 6:41 PM Caleb White <cdwhite3@pm.me> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Sunday, October 6th, 2024 at 06:12, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > So, if my understanding is correct, please put some thought into how
> > to reorganize this patch series to ensure that the full test suite
> > passes for each patch.
>
> Yes, there was one edge case that broke and this patch fixed. But I
> understand what you mean about the bisectability. I was trying to come
> up with ways to split up the commits and this seemed like a good spot as
> it just introduced new functions with minimal changes elsewhere. But
> this can be squashed into the previous patch.

I haven't yet pored over the code in-depth, so I don't know if it is even possible, but it's typically very much preferred by reviewers if you can present a series as smaller, simpler, easier-to-digest patches than large monolithic ones. So, it would be ideal if you could figure out some good split points (especially since patch [2/4] is already uncomfortably large for a reviewer). But sometimes it's just not possible to find good splits, so a large patch may be the only choice.