On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 07:33:10PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 22 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> I'm on the fence on how important it is to do these cleanups. IMHO they > >> are half of what really sells the change in the first place (since the > >> other bug can pretty easily be fixed without it). > > > > Yes. I actually think these have much better value for their > > complexity, compared to the other "half" of the topic ;-) > > > >> But maybe it is piling too much onto what is already a pretty big > >> change. The cleanups could be done individually later. > > > > I am OK with that, too. But I do agree that the series is too big > > to sit in front of a fix for a bug, for which a much simpler and > > focused approach has already been discussed, to block it. > > I'm happy to re-roll this on top of the more narrow fix. FWIW the bug's > there since at least v2.30.0 (just tested that, probably much older), so > in that sense there's no urgency either way. I suspect it has been a problem since 43b0190224 (pager: lose a separate argv[], 2016-02-16) in v2.7.3. So yeah, definitely not urgent, but I do think we can get out a 2-line minimal fix to start with. -Peff
