On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 06:37:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> OK, as Linus's "count at the point of use" is already in 'next', > >> could you make it incremental with a log message? > > > > Sure. I wasn't sure if you actually liked my direction or not, so I was > > mostly just showing off what the completed one would look like. > > To be quite honest, I am not just unsure if I liked your direction; > rather I am not sure if I actually understood what you perceived as > a difference that matters between the two approaches. I wanted to > hear you explain the difference in terms of "Linus's does this, but > it is bad in X and Y way, so let's avoid it and do it like Z > instead". One effective way to extract that out of you was to force > you to justify the "incremental" update. > > And it seems that I succeeded ;-). > > I am still not sure if I 100% agree with your first paragraph, but > at least now I think I see where you are coming from. For the record, I am OK with Linus's patch as-is. It's mostly "that's not how I would have done it, and the flow seems confusing to me". But that's subjective; I don't think there are any functional flaws in it. > You probably will hear from Ramsay about extern-ness of msb(). Heh. I seem to have a real problem with that lately. -Peff