On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Pratik Karki <predatoramigo@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> The changes in patch increased from v1 to v2 because I >> got excited to work in Git codebase and I tried to >> fix the exisiting problems as much as possible. >> Hence, the large number of changes. > > Eric understands why the scope was increased between the two; he > explained why it is not a good idea to increase the scope in the > middle, and I tend to agree with his reasoning. The reason why the > scope was increased does not matter. Thanks, Junio. I had just started writing a review of v3 when your review arrived, and you covered every point I was going to make, thus saved me the effort. I agree with everything in your review. One additional comment, Pratik, is that this patch seems to be based upon a slightly old version of the Git source code, thus does not apply cleanly to present-day 'master'. Before re-rolling, update to the latest Git and rebase your patch atop it. >> - PACK5=$( git rev-list --objects "$LIST" "$LI" "$ST" | \ >> - git pack-objects test-5 ) && >> - PACK6=$( ( >> + git rev-list --objects "$LIST" "$LI" "$ST" >actual && >> + PACK5=$( git pack-objects test-5 <actual ) && >> + PACK6=$(( > > I thought that Eric already pointed out and explained why this > change to PACK6 is wrong in the previous round? I probably should have been more explicit by naming PACK6 directly. Comparing v3 against v2, I see that Pratik probably misunderstood my comment, thinking that I was talking about losing the whitespace inside PACK5=$(...); v2 dropped that whitespace and v3 restored it. Pratik, dropping the unnecessary whitespace inside PACK5=$(...) is fine (no complaint about that), but changing PACK6=$( (...) ) to PACK6=$((...)) is outright incorrect as explained in [1]. [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/CAPig+cTKkp6kpFcJfVV8W1ejCrCWQH33mHtgFUn+MpMgw5i1pA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
