On Wed, Jan 12 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> This is a follow-up to the recently landed ab/refs-errno-cleanup >> topic, I missed a spot and left some meaningless use of "errno" in the >> refs (file) backend. > > Is it a fix "oops the ones we merged to 'master' were buggy and > needs these on top to be correct"? > > If it is merely a follow-up "I am doing more of the same thing as we > aimed to do in that topic", I'd rather leave it to the next cycle. > > I'll come back to the topic to find it out from the patches > themselves, but after I dealt with other patches that are more > clearly fix-ups first. 3/3 isn't needed for v2.35.0, but I figured if you were queuing this that obvious cleanup after the also-not-strictly-needed 2/3 made sense. But I can leave both of those until after the release if you'd like. I think we should have 1/3 for 2.35.0 as rationalized in its commit message. I.e. I haven't found a way for that omission in my ef18119dec8 to break things in practice, but I'm also not confident that I thought through all the potential cases. Changing that code to be obviously correct in terms of the current API is an easy enough fix. So just let me know how you'd like to proceed. I.e. I can re-roll a v2 with just 1/3, but I think this v1 is also good-to-go as-is. Thanks!
