Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2017, #02; Sun, 15)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 17, 2017, 19:45 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqbmv5fp22.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701161226090.3469@virtualbox>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> * js/prepare-sequencer-more (2017-01-09) 38 commits
>
> I think that it adds confusion rather than value to specifically use a
> different branch name than I indicated in my submission, unless there is a
> really good reason to do so (which I fail to see here).

I've been meaning to rename it to match yours, for the exact reason. The only reason was I needed my time spent to deal with other topics, and reusing the same topic name as I used very first time was less work. I'll find time to update it (if you are curious, it is not just "git branch -m").

Thanks.

> The only outstanding review comments I know about are your objection to
> the name of the read_env_script() function (which I shot down as bogus),

Not the "name", but the implementation not sharing the same code with "am" codepath even though they originate from the same shell function and serve the same purpose.

> and the rather real bug fix I sent out as a fixup! which you may want to
> squash in (in the alternative, I can mailbomb v4 of the entire sequencer-i
> patch series, that is your choice).

I'd rather see the "make elengant" thing redone in a more sensible way, but I feel that it is waste of my time to help you see the distinction between maintainable code and code that happens to work with today's requirement, so I give up, hoping that other people will later refactor the code that should be shared after the series lands. I'll squash the fixup! thing in, and as I already said a few days ago, I do not think we'd want v4 (rather we'd want to go incremental).