From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E37AC77B73 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 19:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234203AbjEVTRj (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2023 15:17:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40876 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233857AbjEVTRh (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2023 15:17:37 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3FDBFE for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 12:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 32322 invoked by uid 109); 22 May 2023 19:17:31 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 May 2023 19:17:31 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 4188 invoked by uid 111); 22 May 2023 19:17:30 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 22 May 2023 15:17:30 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 15:17:30 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] fetch: pass through `fetch_config` directly Message-ID: <20230522191730.GA365027@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20230519001803.GC2442034@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:58:51AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > If the point is that fetch_config may start carrying new information, > > wouldn't we want to pass it as a whole down to display_state_init()? It > > might eventually want to see some of that other config, too. > > > > It's presumably academic for now, and it would not be too hard to change > > later if needed, so I don't know that it's worth a re-roll. I just found > > it especially funny here since the purpose of the patch is to treat the > > config struct as a single unit. > > Well, I decided against passing in the full configuration as it feels a > bit like a layering violation: the other code really is about the fetch > itself, while this code here is only about display logic. So passing in > the `fetch_config` felt weird to me, even more so because we continue to > only need that single value at the end of this series. I do see your > point though. > > Given that none of your other comments require a reroll I'll leave this > as-is for now. Thanks for your review! Yeah, I could see that line of thinking, as well. Leaving sounds good to me. And I think that was my only substantive comment on the whole series, so we can consider the whole reviewed-by: me. -Peff