On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 03:03:09PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 8/28/2020 2:55 PM, Jeff King wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 02:50:39PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > >> So I'd be tempted to say that the latter callers should be using a > >> separate function that gives them what they want. That lets them avoid > >> being too intimate with the details of how we order things. > >> > >> The patch below illustrates that. It also changes the existing function > >> name to avoid confusion and to help audit the existing callers, but > >> that's optional and maybe not worth it. > > > > And here's the same concept as a more minimal change, suitable for > > squashing into yours. The advantage is that it keeps the "the local one > > goes first" logic in one abstracted spot. > > This is nice because it is more future-proof: if we needed to > change the order of the midx list, then we could update the > implementation of this method instead of every caller. > > Personally, I prefer this one (squashed). Ditto. Peff and I crossed emails, so I was talking about tidying up his earlier patch before I even had seen the second one. Peff -- any objections to me squashing this into mine and sending that for queueing? > Thanks, > -Stolee Thanks, Taylor
