On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 8:43 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:45 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:24 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > > >> >> As things are slowly moving out of the so-far kitchen-sink "cache.h" > >> >> into more specific subsystem headers (like object-store.h), we may > >> >> actually want to tighten the "header that includes it first" part a > >> >> bit in the future, so that 'git grep cache.h' would give us a more > >> >> explicit and a better picture of what really depends on knowing what > >> >> the lowest level plumbing API are built around. > >> >> > >> >> > So I think the better test is a two-line .c file with: > >> >> > > >> >> > #include "git-compat-util.h" > >> >> > #include $header_to_check > >> >> > >> >> But until that tightening happens, I do not actually mind the > >> >> two-line .c file started with inclusion of cache.h instead of > >> >> git-compat-util.h. That would limit the scope of this series > >> >> further. > >> > > >> > Yes, this removes about 2/3 of patch #1. > >> > >> Sorry for making a misleading comment. I should have phrased "I > >> would not have minded if the series were looser by assuming > >> cache.h", implying that "but now the actual patch went extra mile to > >> be more complete, what we have is even better ;-)". > > > > Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. > > But please remind me not to merge this round down to 'next', for the > "enum" forward decl gotcha. I'll send out a new round shortly. Would you like me to squash the last patch (the one that had two hunks with minor conflicts with other topics in next and pu) into the first patch, or would you rather I dropped that patch and waited to submit it until later?
