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 33CCAC433F5 for ; Thu, 19 May 2022 15:31:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233767AbiESPbj (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2022 11:31:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54592 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241053AbiESPbd (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2022 11:31:33 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDA1F4DF69 for ; Thu, 19 May 2022 08:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE499192074; Thu, 19 May 2022 11:31:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=QnC15M1jsqtV Agq5qDNG8NSKuVHltSAWSUJsB4QbjIk=; b=a+BNjw4yH3X3DstXFAmTWBquDvI3 kD/jOkwTt3AkFnVu85pATgbg5uObAeCU/f4/5e+zN/ffnm1PefYh7oLVB2VJM/gc KZ9gQE2c9IVfye9u4NcH42V12vhrz78YzgRvFOGeUn2zuYetBx07U3Jqk6Yxg4h2 9XtfSO50vxqjRVo= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5925192073; Thu, 19 May 2022 11:31:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.65.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51E5019206C; Thu, 19 May 2022 11:31:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau , derrickstolee@github.com, jrnieder@gmail.com, larsxschneider@gmail.com, tytso@mit.edu Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Utility functions for duplicated pack(write) code References: Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 08:31:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyIEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Thu, 19 May 2022 13:42:26 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BE84A172-D788-11EC-B242-C85A9F429DF0-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > Minor cleanups thath would semantically & textually conflict with > Taylor's > https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1652915424.git.me@ttaylorr.com/; but > which I noted while reading through it. Very much appreciated that you marked this as RFC. It is natural and easy to notice problems in the code that is in flux, because it is inevitable for anybody working on the codebase to see the changes in-flight and the original code as they review, or as they make trial merges of their own work and see conflicts. But making patches to address them immediately out of spinal reflex would not help anybody. Marking them as RFC and calling attention by those involved in the "other topic" while the code being cleaned up is still fresh in their mind makes it efficient to review the clean-up while letting the "other topic" to either proceed without clean-up or with it rolled in.