Re: [PATCH 3/3] abbrev: auto size the default abbreviation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]