Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 3/24/2022 4:48 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> All existing tests continue to pass with this change. There was one >>> instance from t7700-repack.sh that was taking advantage of this >>> flexibility, but it was removed in the previous change. >> >> Of course all existing tests continue to pass, as we no longer have >> any user of test_subcommand_inexact after the previous step ;-). > > Yeah, I definitely should have checked to see if there were other > uses of this. I thought there was, but I was mistaken. > >> Among >> >> (1) doing nothing, >> (2) removing, and >> (3) clarifying the implementation, >> >> my preference would be 2 > 1 > 3. If we add > > I agree that (2) is the best option here. > >> (4) clarify the implementation and document what kind of inexactness we >> tolerate with an updated comment" >> >> to the mix, that would come before all 3 others, though. > > Is there value in fixing the implementation and adding this comment > if we are to just delete the helper? I suppose that we could prevent > a future contribution from reintroducing the broken implementation. That is a good thoguth to take into account. > My current feeling is that we should just delete this and refer > to that deletion if anyone considers needing something like it. I am very much in favor of deleting it. Thanks.
