On Sun, 8 Nov 2026 at 19:35, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
I could squash it all into a single patch too, which I think
would make sense if we don't need the intermediate state
where both genzeros and genbytes exist at the same time.
What's your preference?
I have no strong preference between keeping both genzeros() and
genbytes() or rewriting users of genzeros() to use genbytes(), and I
prefer to leave that out of the decision.
My preference is to optimize for those who consume the resulting
history the most over the longer term.
Your split between a "pure rename" and a "modification in place"
is optimizing for those who review the patches on the mailing list
(arguably due to tool limitations). While they are an important
audience of yours (after all, without their support, your change
would not end up in the final history), those who will read the
history via "git log" or "git show" to see what happened later are
the more important readers of your work in the long run. To them,
a single rename-and-modify commit is much easier to understand, I
would think.
That's fair -- For v2 I will squash patches 1 and 2 and keep
patch 3. I'll also add the lowercase hex as input format.
The similarity seems to be ~29%, so running it with -M20% would
only mildly reduce the diff, though I think the diff is
manageable to consume anyway.
Thanks,
Kristofer