"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:
This is a restart on the topic previously submitted [1] but dropped because
ak/corrected-commit-date was still in progress. This version is based on
that branch.
I've read the topic through, and found it a pleasant read. There
are some questionable use of integer types, some uneven application
of casts, and the reading side API is somewhat underdocumented, but
the overall direction looked quite sane.
I am undecided if I should expect a reroll, or declare what we have
"already good enough" for 'next' and expect incremental refinements,
though. A reroll that catches all nits would certainly make the
resulting topic's history nicer for future developers to work with,
but its also a pain to re-read essentially the same patches again,
so...
On 2/4/2021 9:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
This is a restart on the topic previously submitted [1] but dropped because
ak/corrected-commit-date was still in progress. This version is based on
that branch.
I've read the topic through, and found it a pleasant read. There
are some questionable use of integer types, some uneven application
of casts, and the reading side API is somewhat underdocumented, but
the overall direction looked quite sane.
I am undecided if I should expect a reroll, or declare what we have
"already good enough" for 'next' and expect incremental refinements,
though. A reroll that catches all nits would certainly make the
resulting topic's history nicer for future developers to work with,
but its also a pain to re-read essentially the same patches again,
so...
I appreciate the willingness to take the topic as-is, but I think
you've given me enough interesting comments to deserve a re-roll.
I will provide one tomorrow and hope that the range-diff is a
pleasant read ;).
Thanks,
-Stolee