On 2019.04.10 00:43, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:14:41AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> I've dealt with the stray double-sign-off locally, but is there > >> anything else planned for v4 or later? Is this performance-only > >> change, or does it have an externally observable behaviour change > >> that we can easily add to our test suite? > > > > I am OK if we do not include it, but even if this is "just" a > > performance-only change, we can always add to our perf regression suite. > > Hmph, that does not say much about a possible change in behaviour in > corner cases you guys were discuussing near the beginning of the > thread when an object can be reached from both a non-promisor and a > promisor object, does it? > > Shouldn't we at least tweak the log message to record that we were > aware of the possibility even though we couldn't readily come up > with a case where this optimization breaks things? I suspect that > it would help the next person who needs to deal with a possible > regression coming from this change to understand the problem better > and hopefully faster. > I'll update the log message and send a v4 in a few minutes.
