Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
I'm on the fence on how important it is to do these cleanups. IMHO they
are half of what really sells the change in the first place (since the
other bug can pretty easily be fixed without it).
Yes. I actually think these have much better value for their
complexity, compared to the other "half" of the topic ;-)
But maybe it is piling too much onto what is already a pretty big
change. The cleanups could be done individually later.
I am OK with that, too. But I do agree that the series is too big
to sit in front of a fix for a bug, for which a much simpler and
focused approach has already been discussed, to block it.
Thanks.
On Mon, Nov 22 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I'm on the fence on how important it is to do these cleanups. IMHO they
are half of what really sells the change in the first place (since the
other bug can pretty easily be fixed without it).
Yes. I actually think these have much better value for their
complexity, compared to the other "half" of the topic ;-)
quoted
But maybe it is piling too much onto what is already a pretty big
change. The cleanups could be done individually later.
I am OK with that, too. But I do agree that the series is too big
to sit in front of a fix for a bug, for which a much simpler and
focused approach has already been discussed, to block it.
I'm happy to re-roll this on top of the more narrow fix. FWIW the bug's
there since at least v2.30.0 (just tested that, probably much older), so
in that sense there's no urgency either way.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 07:33:10PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I'm on the fence on how important it is to do these cleanups. IMHO they
are half of what really sells the change in the first place (since the
other bug can pretty easily be fixed without it).
Yes. I actually think these have much better value for their
complexity, compared to the other "half" of the topic ;-)
quoted
But maybe it is piling too much onto what is already a pretty big
change. The cleanups could be done individually later.
I am OK with that, too. But I do agree that the series is too big
to sit in front of a fix for a bug, for which a much simpler and
focused approach has already been discussed, to block it.
I'm happy to re-roll this on top of the more narrow fix. FWIW the bug's
there since at least v2.30.0 (just tested that, probably much older), so
in that sense there's no urgency either way.
I suspect it has been a problem since 43b0190224 (pager: lose a separate
argv[], 2016-02-16) in v2.7.3. So yeah, definitely not urgent, but I do
think we can get out a 2-line minimal fix to start with.
-Peff