# Re: \[PATCH v2 0/5\] some chainlint fixes and performance improvements

- List: git
- 2 messages, 2 authors
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2023/03/7967521/t

## Re: \[PATCH v2 0/5\] some chainlint fixes and performance improvements

- From: Junio C Hamano \<hidden\>
- Date: 2023-03-30 20:32:38 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2023/03/7967521.md

```text
Jeff King [ref] writes:

> As before, I think the first patch is the most important, and the rest
> are optimizations. But with Eric's patch to chainlint.pl in the middle,
> I think the argument for patch 4 (previously patch 3) is much stronger.
>
> Patch 5 remains mostly a cleanup, with no performance improvement. IMHO
> the result is easier to follow, but I'm open to arguments to the
> contrary.
>
>   [1/5]: tests: run internal chain-linter under "make test"
>   [2/5]: tests: replace chainlint subshell with a function
>   [3/5]: tests: diagnose unclosed here-doc in chainlint.pl
>   [4/5]: tests: drop here-doc check from internal chain-linter
>   [5/5]: tests: skip test_eval_ in internal chain-lint

The new step [3/5] makes it easier to justify [4/5], indeed.  Two
primary changes at the beginning are good as before.  The last one
does not make anything particularly easier to read, replacing one
cryptic eval stuff with another, but it does not make it any worse,
and the most importantly, it is clear to see that it does not change
the behaviour.

Will queue.  Thanks.  Let's merge it down to 'next'.

```

## Re: \[PATCH v2 0/5\] some chainlint fixes and performance improvements

- From: Jeff King \<hidden\>
- Date: 2023-03-30 22:09:26 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2023/03/7967526.md

```text
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 01:32:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> >   [5/5]: tests: skip test_eval_ in internal chain-lint
> 
> The new step [3/5] makes it easier to justify [4/5], indeed.  Two
> primary changes at the beginning are good as before.  The last one
> does not make anything particularly easier to read, replacing one
> cryptic eval stuff with another, but it does not make it any worse,
> and the most importantly, it is clear to see that it does not change
> the behaviour.

Yeah, the eval garbage is horrid no matter where it is. The improvement
is that we no longer have to manually save-and-restore the "trace"
variable.

> Will queue.  Thanks.  Let's merge it down to 'next'.

Great, thanks. :)

-Peff
```