Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] commit-graph: fsck zero/non-zero generation number fixes
- From
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
- Date
- Aug 23, 2023, 19:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ZOZlDS2w9n3tHbR+@nand.local>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq5y58nfp0.fsf@gitster.g>
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 04:22:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > The end result looks good to me. I probably would have squashed at least > > 2+4 into one, and probably just squashed 3 into that as well. But I am > > OK with it as-is, too, and it is definitely diminishing returns to keep > > polishing it. > > I had the same impression. The endgame after applying all four > looks very sensible but the changes necessary to fix things while > keeping ZERO_EXISTS and NUMBER_EXISTS looked more or less like > unnecessary detour.
I had a hard time picking between the two alternatives when assembling these patches myself. I ended up going with the approach here because I figured that the intermediate stages of the refactoring were sufficiently complicated that breaking them up made it easier for readers to digest the changes as a whole.
> > Thanks for assembling it into a usable form. > > Yup. Will queue almost as-is (except for dropping the repeated > "commit-graph" on the title of the last step).
Thank you!
Thanks, Taylor