Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2022, #02; Fri, 9)

> > I just want to double-check that the plan is to merge this to master as
> > noted above. I had thought you would revert jk/unused-annotation and
> > that I'd just re-roll it. I'm perfectly happy with either, but just
> > didn't want to add more confusion by posting that re-roll. ;)
> 
> Sorry for making a confusing move.  The thing is, the first patch in
> this two-patch series builds on top of your "UNUSED(var)" thing.
> Its patch text depends on "UNUSED(var)" being there, and it explains
> why we ended up using the "var UNUSED" syntax over "UNUSED(var)".
> It of course is the right thing to do because "UNUSED(var)" was
> already in 'next' when it was written.
> 
> We could rewrite it to pretend as if "UNUSED(var)" never happened;
> we prefer to keep experiments that turned out to be dead end and we
> are unlikely to revisit out of our history.  But I think it makes
> sense in this case to leave a record in our history that we consider
> that "UNUSED(var)" is a superiour implementation that we would have
> used and the only reason why we do not use it for now is Coccinelle.
> 
> So, 'next' has the merge of 'jk/unused-annotation' reverted, but when
> 'ab/unused-annotation' was merged, the revert was reverted ;-).
> When it graduates to 'master', it will pull 'jk/unused-annotation'
> along with it and keeps "UNUSED(var)" in our history, but at its
> tip, what we end up using will be "var UNUSED".