> > Junio, what are your plans over what you have in your tree? If you'd > > like to hear Heba's opinion on it, then she can chime in; if you'd like > > a review, then I think it's good to go in. > > On hold until anything like those happens ;-) > > A random reviewer mentioning something on a patch (either in a > line-by-line critique form or "how about doing it this way instead" > counterproposal form) without getting followed up by others > (including the original author) is a stall review thread, and it > does not change the equation if the random reviewer happens to be me. OK :-) > > And I think the answer to that is "s" is used throughout the function in > > various ways (in particular, used to print statuses both to stdout and > > to the message template) so any wrapping or corralling of scope would > > just make things more complicated. In particular, the way Heba did it in > > v2 is more unclear - at the time of setting s->hints = 0, it's done > > You mean "less clear" (just double checking if I got the negation right)? Yes, less clear - v2 is less clear than v1. > I think I've merged it to 'next' yesterday, but it does not mean > that much as we are in -rc and it is not such an urgent "oops we > broke it in this cycle, let's fix it" issue. If we see a v3 that > improves it, I do not mind at all reverting what I merged to 'next' > and use the updated one instead (either way, it will be in 'master' > during the next cycle at the earliest). Sounds good - thanks.
