Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, Feb 22 2018, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
quoted
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Here's a v5 (correct subject line this time!). Many thanks to Eric for
a thorough review.
We haven't seen any comments on this round. Is everybody happy?
I do not have a strong opinion on the new feature, either for or
against. I didn't find anything majorly questionable in the
execution, though, so...
I've been running that here on thousands of boxes (that are actively
using it) for 2 weeks now without issue. Would be great to have it
merged down & in 2.17.
If those thousands of boxes are all employing one specific workflow
that is helped by these changes, and the workflow is that other
people do not care about (or even worse, actively do not want to let
their junior project members to use without thinking), then a
data-point from the original author does not amount to much ;-)
Let's see how others find it useful and/or if the changed code gets
in the way of others (I am not absolutely sure if the changes are
free of regression to existing users who do not use the new
feature).
Thanks.
On Thu, Feb 22 2018, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Thu, Feb 22 2018, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
quoted
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Here's a v5 (correct subject line this time!). Many thanks to Eric for
a thorough review.
We haven't seen any comments on this round. Is everybody happy?
I do not have a strong opinion on the new feature, either for or
against. I didn't find anything majorly questionable in the
execution, though, so...
I've been running that here on thousands of boxes (that are actively
using it) for 2 weeks now without issue. Would be great to have it
merged down & in 2.17.
If those thousands of boxes are all employing one specific workflow
that is helped by these changes, and the workflow is that other
people do not care about (or even worse, actively do not want to let
their junior project members to use without thinking), then a
data-point from the original author does not amount to much ;-)
Of course, I should have been clearer. I just meant to chime in with the
datapoint that I'm fairly sure this doesn't have any serious bugs given
the wide internal testing it's gotten.
Let's see how others find it useful and/or if the changed code gets
in the way of others (I am not absolutely sure if the changes are
free of regression to existing users who do not use the new
feature).
I think if you're on the fence about merging it down (and others don't
chime in saying the want it / like it) it makes sense to merge down
1-14/17 and we could discard 15-17/17 for now for a later re-submission
and discussion once the earlier part of the series lands in master.
The earlier part of the series is just trivial code changes that don't
change any functionality, more documentation for how existing
functionality works, and more thorough testing of existing
functionality.