Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

We should free objects before leaving.

Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <redacted>

Micronit: perhaps you should move the "free obejcts before leaving"
(in do_pick_commit) to the subject instead of "trivial fix", which
adds no value to the patch.

Perhaps. I prefer it this way because it's really a trivial fix not
really worth much time thinking about it. So when somebody is browsing
the history they can happily skip this one. The time save by not
reading I think adds more value than any succinct description that
would force each and every patch-reviewer/history-reader to read it.

Some time from now, assume a ridiculus case when this function grows
more complex and somebody wonders what the "leave" label is for, "git
log --oneline -Slabel:" showing "trivial fix" would not help much.

Fortunately that's not the main use-case, and for that single instance
that probably will never happen, I think it's not too much to ask to
this hypothetical developer to remove the --oneline, or copy-paste the
SHA-1 and take a peek. He would probably need to do that anyway.

And the "time saving by not reading" is also hypothetical. But I won't
continue this discussion.

Is it? How much time does it take to read "trivial fix"? Half a
second? How much time does it take copy-paste the SHA-1 of a --oneline
log? Five seconds? So to break even we need ten readers that would
only browse the history per each person that goes beyond the summary.
To be safe let's do +- 100% and make it twenty readers.

I think it's safe to assume there will be more than 20 readers
skipping this commit without much though, perhaps a 100 or even more,
and how many would need to take a closer look? I'd say 0, 1 might be
possible, but to err on the side of caution let's say 2, hell, let's
be generous and make it 3. We are still safe well beyond profit.

But we have already wasted many more seconds than any of those guys
would, so does it really matter?

-- 
Felipe Contreras