Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Fixes for Documentation/MyFirstObjectWalk.txt

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 02:08:35PM +0100, Dirk Gouders wrote:
>> The 4th round of this series.
>> 
>> Chances are that I just waste your time with my attemt [4/5].
>> My appologies in advance, should this be the case.
>> 
>> Recently, there was a discussion [1] on the groff mailing list and I
>> guess I couldn't resist to try to practice what I read in the linked
>> resources ;-)
>> 
>> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2024-03/msg00014.html
>> 
>> Could be that the remaining controversal part of [4/5] should just be
>> left untouched, because it is consuming so much time -- I summarized
>> all those versions, so that all incarnations can be compared in one
>> view:
>> 
>> * Original:
>> 
>> Asking `traverse_commit_list_filtered()` to populate the `omitted`
>> list means that our object walk does not perform any better than an
>> unfiltered object walk; all reachable objects are walked in order to
>> populate the list.
>> 
>> * v3:
>> 
>> Note that this means that our object walk will not perform any better
>> than an unfiltered object walk; all reachable objects are walked in
>> order to populate the list.
>> 
>> * Junio's suggestion (with minor rearrangement):
>> 
>> Note that our object walk with this function will not perform any
>> better than the previous unfiltered walk, because all reachable
>> objects need to be walked in order to populate the list of filtered
>> objects.
>> 
>> * Kyle's suggestion:
>> 
>> Note that requesting the list of filtered objects may have performance
>> implications; all reachable objects will be visited in order to
>> populate the list of filtered objects.
>> 
>> * My new attempt (v4):
>> 
>> This list of filtered objects may have performance implications,
>> however, because despite filtering objects, the possibly much larger
>> set of all reachable objects must be processed in order to populate
>> that list.
>
> I agree with the issues Junio raised on this phrasing, and trust in Junio's
> judgement to get to a clear phrasing :) I'll be unresponsive to email for at
> least the next two weeks, so please don't block awaiting my response on any
> future rerolls.