Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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 earlier attempt was retracted.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. OK, so it seems we both have slight preference for the "peel back" approach. Adding Jonathan to Cc:
