Message ID | pull.1563.v3.git.1695412245.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Trailer readability cleanups | expand |
"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? 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'. 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.
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > "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... > 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. > 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.
Linus Arver <linusa@google.com> writes: >> 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. OK, so the first 3 patches are now in 'master', and the remainder of the previous series have been discarded. Thanks.
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > Linus Arver <linusa@google.com> writes: > >>> 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. > > OK, so the first 3 patches are now in 'master', and the remainder of > the previous series have been discarded. > > Thanks. Oh, that simplifies things. I will re-roll on top of 'master' as the starting point for the other remaining patches instead of using 'next' as I suggested earlier.