On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:01:46PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > That takes us back to the pre-regression state. The ancient bug from > > 4c7f1819 still exists, but that would be OK for v2.15. We'd probably > > want to bump the -rc cycle a bit to give more confidence that (2) caught > > everything. > > Yes, I think that is the approach I was pushing initially with the > jc/ref-filter-colors-fix topic that was later retracted; the result > of your 4-patch series more or less matches that one, modulo that I > didn't treat for-each-ref as a plumbing. Ah, right, I forgot about that one while I was putting it together. So many alternatives floating around. > I do share the worry that > it is hard to make sure that these post-revert adjustment caught > everything; after all, that was a major part of the reason why my > earlier attempt was retracted. I still think this is the _right_ > direction to go in, even though it is harder to get right. To be honest, I'm not actually very worried. I think missing a post-revert adjustment is the main risk, but my general sense is that there hasn't been a lot going on with color fixes outside of my recent work. Famous last words and all that, I'm sure. :) > True. Let's see what others think. I know Jonathan is running > the fork at $work with "downgrade always to auto" patches, and while > I think both approaches would probably work well in practice, I have > preference for this "harder but right" approach, so I'd want to see > different views discussed on the list before we decide. After pondering over it, I have a slight preference for that, too. But I'm also happy to hear more input. -Peff
