Re: [PATCH 0/3] Small new merge-ort features, prepping for deletion of merge-recursive.[ch]

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2025, 20:05 UTC
Message-ID: <Z9HpAgGq0FSOheLj@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <Z9FAh5p2h55_4mki@pks.im>

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 09:06:31AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 03:48:39PM +0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > I've got 19 patches covering the work needed to prep for and allow us to
> > delete merge-recursive.[ch], and remap 'recursive' to 'ort', including some
> > clean-up along the way. I've tried to divide it up into five smaller patch
> > series.
> >
> > These 3 patches are the first of those series, and each of these 3 patches
> > provide a small new feature that together will be used to allow us to
> > convert some callers over from recursive to ort. If the third patch,
> > introducing merge_ort_generic(), doesn't make sense to submit without one of
> > its new callers, I can extend this series to 6 patches and include the
> > conversion of git-am.sh.
>
> I think extending it to 6 patches would make sense as it's somewhat
> unfortunate that this version introduces the function, but has no
> callers at all.

Eh. I have gone back and forth about that over the years. I think in cases where the either caller(s) or implementation is sufficiently complicated, it's OK to introduce a (non-static) function without any callers.

I don't feel strongly about it, so I think the multi-series structure is fine as it is (especially since we know that more are coming in the future). But I'm also not opposed to seeing this series extended out to include the three additional patches.

Thanks, Taylor