Hi Junio, On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> FWIW, the duplication is really tiny: according to > >> > >> $ wc $(grep -l REFTABLE_STANDALONE *[ch]) > >> > >> it's just 431 lines of code. > > > > The `merge_bases_many()` function has only 33 lines of code, partially > > duplicating `get_reachable_subset()`. Yet, it had a bug in it for two > > years that was not found. > > It does not affect the current discussion, but what you are giving > is a revisionist view of the world. The latter function came MUCH > later to do a bit more than the former. The bug was caused by the > fact that those that added the latter neglected the responsibility > of maintaining the former to the same degree when new feature like > commit-graph were added to the latter. You're right, I mixed up the direction: by introducing new code, the old code became under-tested and a bug creeped in that was not detected for two years. > The root cause was that the latter one did not share the code with > the former one when it was introduced. That does make it appear > similar to the situation we have at hand with duplicated utility > functions. Indeed, and even if this is just one concrete example, experience (and teachers and instructors and mentors) repeat the lesson that code duplication should be avoided because it _does_ cause problems. Thanks for setting the record straight, Dscho > > > How much worse will the situation be with your 431 lines of code. > > > > Even more so when you consider the fact that you intend to shove the same > > duplication down libgit2's throat. It's "triplicating" code. > > > > So I find the argument you made above quite unconvincing. > > > > Ciao, > > Dscho >
