Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] Trailer readability cleanups
- From
- Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
- Date
- Sep 22, 2023, 23:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <owlyzg1dsswr.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq8r8xyge6.fsf@gitster.g>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 23 quoted lines
> "Linus Arver via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> These patches were created while digging into the trailer code to better
>> understand how it works, in preparation for making the trailer.{c,h} files
>> as small as possible to make them available as a library for external users.
>> This series was originally created as part of [1], but are sent here
>> separately because the changes here are arguably more subjective in nature.
>> I think Patch 1 is the most important in this series. The others can wait,
>> if folks are opposed to adding them on their own merits at this point in
>> time.
>
> Hmph, as we discussed, these changes have already been cooking in
> 'next' for some time:
>
> 13211ae23f trailer: separate public from internal portion of trailer_iterator
> c2a8edf997 trailer: split process_input_file into separate pieces
> 94430d03df trailer: split process_command_line_args into separate functions
> ee8c5ee08c trailer: teach find_patch_start about --no-divider
> d2be104085 trailer: rename *_DEFAULT enums to *_UNSPECIFIED
> b5e75f87b5 trailer: use offsets for trailer_start/trailer_end
>
> and I thought we agreed that we'll park them in 'next' and do
> whatever necessary fix-up on top as incremental patches?Ahhh yes! I completely forgot. So sorry for the noise...
Show 6 quoted lines
> The first > three patches in this iteration seems to be identical to the > previous round, so I can ignore them and keep the old iteration, but > the remainder of this series are replacements that are suitable when > the series was still out of 'next', but they are no longer usable > once the series is in 'next'.
Right.
Show 8 quoted lines
> I could revert and discard [4-6/6] of the previous iteration out of > 'next' and have only the first three (which I thought have been > adequately reviewed without remaining issues) graduate to 'master', > if it makes it easier to fix this update on top, but I'd rather not > to encourage people to form a habit of reverting changes out of > 'next'. > > Thanks.
I totally agree that reverting changes out of next is undesirable. I will do a reroll on top of 'next' with only those incremental (new) patches.