Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > So in that sense, I do not think keeping them separate in practice > has the "makes it easier to revert this change" benefit. > > If I were doing these two patches, I'd squash them together into > one, rename GIT_PCRE1_CAN_DO_MODERN_JIT to GIT_PCRE1_USE_JIT, and > explain in the log message why we turn it off for versions older > than 8.32 like you did in the log message for thsi patch. > > The reason for the "rename" is because I might also be tempted to > allow users of newer version to manually decline GIT_PCRE1_USE_JIT > in Makefile/config.mak; i.e. we may decide not to USE something even > if we CAN, and the #ifdef symbol you are using is about the decision > to USE or not USE, not necessarily if the library CAN. Need to say a few things that I forgot to mention. I said that I do not see practical benefit for keeping the patches separate. But at the same time, I do not see it a huge problem that such a "main one that is partly broken" followed by "fix for one minority" followed by "fix for another minority" pattern causes to bisection. So I'd be OK either way. Especially, I'd be more than OK if the "main one that is partly broken" says "by the way, this is (deliberately) left broken for two cases, and if you hit this during your bisection, do not answer good or bad and instead reset to a few commits newer that has both fixes" in its log message. Then there is no downside in bisection.