On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 03:54:03PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > Yeah, if you're willing to. I don't mind spinning it off into its own > > series if you don't want to (the tricky part is that we're touching a > > couple of the same spots, though, so if you're willing to pick them up, > > I think that makes coordination easier). > > > > I can do so. The only question that I have is whether I should rebase it > on top of 6/6 or on top of 2/6. It's hard for me to gauge whether 6/6 is > going to make it in or not due to the conflicting opinions on it. It > currently seems to me like we tend towards a "no", which is also what > the "What's cooking" report said. But there were also some opinions in > favor of it, which made me wonder. If this is a definitive "no", then > I'm happy to stop bothering with them to make the patch series easier to > manage. I'd probably do it on top of 2/6 (well, perhaps shuffling 4/6 forward is needed, then, I think). And then that punts the decision. As for the general idea of 6/6, I think I'm a soft "no" there. Normally my opinion for things I wouldn't use myself is "hey, go to town, if you're willing to write the patch and it won't hurt anybody else". My only reservation is that it's a public-facing interface, so we'll have to support it forever. And I don't love the interface. That's not a reflection on how you did the series, btw. I think you've done a very good job of trying to address everyone's concerns, and balance them with having a way to get data through the environment that doesn't require error-prone quoting and parsing. But at the end, I think we are left with a fundamental tradeoff: an interface that is clunky because of the counted variables, or one if that is clunky because of the quoting. (And by "soft no", I just mean that I wouldn't pursue it further in your shoes, but I'm not going to strenuously object if you and others want to go forward). -Peff
