On 10 May 2018 at 08:01, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I don't think it's worth re-rolling, but one thing to think about for >> future cleanups: you split the patches by touched area, not by >> functionality. So the first three patches have a "while we're here..." >> that has to explain why dropping the "static" is the right thing over >> and over. If you instead did the error-handling fixes independently >> first, then you could lump the "static" cleanups together with one >> explanation (possibly even just as part of the 4th patch). > > Thanks Peff for a good pice of advice. I agree with the assessment > after reading the series through (includng "not worth rerolling" > part). Right. In the first version, the while-at-its were really while-at-its -- and it turned out it needed some motivation. So, in the reroll, I focused on expanding the commit messages. Any benefit from making patches four and five somewhat smaller definitely got lost in the blown up first three commit messages. Thanks for pointing it out. Martin
