Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 03:29:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> This comment has nothing to do with the change, but the way the >> patch is presented is quite hard to follow, in that the preimage or >> the common context lines do not help understand what the new code is >> doing at all ;-) >> >> I'll come back to the remainder of the patch later. Thanks. > > I applaud Christian's effort to tease it out into separate patches. Ah, no question about it. I have a suspicion that 10/10 alone may still be a bit too large a ball of wax, but with all the earlier preparatory steps are bite-sized and trivial to see how they are correct. The "way the patch is presented" comment was not at all about what Christian did, but was about what the diff machinery computed when comparing the 9th step Christian created and the final step. In its attempt to find and align common context lines, it ended up finding blank lines and almost nothing else in the earlier part of the patch, not just making it harder to read the new helper function (i.e. the best way to read record_reused_object(), for example, is to look only at '+' and ' ' lines, because the '-' lines are irrelevant), it also made it hard to see what got discarded.
