Re: [PATCH] [Outreachy] patch-ids: fix const correctness

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 13, 2025, 17:29 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqzf9u1zix.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CAFpMFfBXhfy7ecBzR-cnGViivQG3AHGrQ00vSTnVY6OdxZPSLg@mail.gmail.com>

Okhuomon Ajayi <okhuomonajayi54@gmail.com> writes:

> I’ll revert my local change, run a build and tests, and then think
> about safer alternatives (or leave the NEEDSWORK comment in place if
> changing the hashmap API isn’t appropriate).
> Thanks for the clarification.

If you can convince readers that changing the hashmap API is not appropriate, then I would think that would make a great explanation for a commit that removes the needswork comment without doing anything else. "Thinking about const correctness issues around this code is no longer needed. The hashmap API is right to insist that the extra data pointer must be const because .... Which makes casting constness away when assigning it to opt, which is what the code is, is indeed the only reasonable thing to do, and there is no more change necessary around here." Of course, such a commit log message must fill in the "because ..." part with a convincing argument ;-).

Thanks.