Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 06:28:06PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> >> I then just never got to picking it up again, I'll probably re-roll it & >> >> make it a part of this series, then we can remove this whole OID != NULL >> >> case and will be sure nothing fishy's going on. >> > >> > Yeah, that sounds like a good path forward. I do think the patch under >> > discussion here is probably the right thing to do. But it becomes all >> > the more obvious if lock_ref_oid_basic() ends up dropping that parameter >> > entirely. >> >> OK, so what's the final verdict on this step? It is unfortunate >> that when Ævar took over a topic from Han-Wen, this patch has been >> inserted as the very first step before the patches in the series, so >> until we know we are happy with it, it takes several other patches >> hostage. > > I just read through v2. Modulo a few small nits (mostly typos, but a few > commit message suggestions), it looks good to me. I agree it's a lot to > stick in front of another set of patches, but I think in this case we > can proceed quickly enough to make it worth doing in the order Ævar > suggests. I did not check the v2 thouroughly myself, but read it enough to convince me that it would be good preliminary clean-up steps to come before the main series (modulo typoes and nits, as you pointed out). Thanks.
