Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> Sounds good. Jonathan? I've squashed Josh'es Reviewed-by, but I >> >> will refrain from merging it to 'next' just yet to see if you too >> >> like the proposed code structure. >> > >> > I think that this is a local enough concern that going either way won't >> > paint us into a corner, so if what's in >> > jt/connectivity-check-optim-in-partial-clone is OK, I prefer using that >> > to reduce churn. >> >> If you do not think their improvement is not much of improvement, >> then please say so. > > Yes, I don't think that their improvement is much of an improvement. If > we were to split up the logic into functions, one of the functions would > need to be documented as "Return true if all objects returned by 'fn' > exist in promisor packs. So we have a stronger basis to reject the different code structure, and I think it makes sense. Which is a better reason to give than "it is a local enough concern and we can do so later if we wanted to". We probably do not want to anyway, right? Thanks. Let's mark the topic as ready for 'next'.
