Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] cocci: remove "the_repository" wrapper macros

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 29, 2023, 19:02 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq355n9y9m.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <cover-v2-00.17-00000000000-20230328T110946Z-avarab@gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

Show 29 quoted lines

>  1:  c167bde3c0c !  1:  e1e27490d60 cocci: remove dead rule from "the_repository.pending.cocci"
>     @@ Commit message
>          cocci: remove dead rule from "the_repository.pending.cocci"
>      
>          The "parse_commit_gently" macro went away in [1], so we don't need to
>     -    carry his for its migration.
>     +    carry this for its migration.
>      
>          1. ea3f7e598c8 (revision: use repository from rev_info when parsing
>             commits, 2020-06-23)
>  2:  1b1fc5d41f5 =  2:  5ac9d5b8905 cocci: fix incorrect & verbose "the_repository" rules
>  3:  34c6b8afd6c !  3:  a3fcd19d744 cocci: sort "the_repository" rules by header
>     @@ Commit message
>          rules. This will make subsequent commits easier to follow, as we'll be
>          applying these rules on a header-by-header basis.
>      
>     +    Once we've fully applied "the_repository.pending.cocci" we'll keep
>     +    this rules around for a while in "the_repository.cocci", to help any
>     +    outstanding topics and out-of-tree code to resolve textual or semantic
>     +    conflicts with these changes, but eventually we'll remove the
>     +    "the_repository.cocci" as a follow-up.
>     +
>     +    So even if some of these functions are subsequently moved and/or split
>     +    into other or new headers there's no risk of this becoming stale, if
>     +    and when that happens the we should be removing these rules anyway.
>     +
>          Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
>      
>       ## contrib/coccinelle/the_repository.pending.cocci ##

After removing the rebase noise from later steps, the above two are the real changes compared to the previous round.

Are people happy with the result? I think the previous round was both read carefully on the central piece of the series, with some spot checks to mechanical parts, and with the above clarification the series is ready to be merged down to 'next'.

If I am grossly off base in the above assessment, please holler soonish. Thanks.