Re: [PATCH v2] Make 'trust_executable_bit' repository-scoped

Tian Yuchen [off-list ref] writes:

Hi drona,

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

 > There were discussions on pros and cons moving global recipients of
 > configuration values into a dynamically allocated strucrure...
 > and excellent pieces of advice have been given by Phillip Wood.
 > If anything, a change like this should ask for input from him.

That makes sense. I think you should CC him whenever you've thoroughly 
polished the patch or when you encounter unresolved issues.

 > This "v2" applies to a mythical codebase where trust_executable_bit
 > is somehow a member in the settings structure, which I do not think
 > we have.

Given Junio's observation, it seems this iteration is targeting an 
incorrect or non-existent codebase structure.

I'll hold off on further reviews of the specific implementation details
until the base codebase issue is sorted out and the structural design
(incorporating Phillip's previous advice) is settled.

I think what the author called v2 was actually [2/N] where the
previous version was treated as [1/N] of the same series.  The line
I noticed was strange in my response is probably correcting what the
previous one did, which is not what we want to see.  It probably is
similar to https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqh5qxzzzn.fsf@gitster.g/ (local)

We prefer the patch authors to pretend to be a perfect developer who
never made any mistakes while writing their series.

This unfortunately is a recurring theme among new developers.

https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqk29bsz2o.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com/ (local)
https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqd0ds5ysq.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/ (local)
https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqr173faez.fsf@gitster.g/ (local)