On 02/05/2022 07:22, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> To avoid unnecessary conflicts with in-flight topics, ideally, we >> perhaps could do something along this line: >> >> * Pick a recent stable point that is an ancestor of all topics in >> flight. Add the new coccinelle rule file, take "make coccicheck" >> output and create a two-patch series like Philip suggested. Queue >> the result in a topic branch B. >> >> * For each topic in flight T, make a trial merge of T into B, and >> examine "make coccicheck" output. Any new breakages such a test >> finds are new violations the topic T introduces. Discard the >> result of the trial merge, and add one commit to topic T that >> corrects the violations the topic introduced, and send that fixup >> to the author of the topic for consideration when the topic is >> rerolled (or if the topic is in 'next', acked to be queued on >> top). Do not fix the violations that is corrected when branch B >> was prepared above. >> >> As I assumed that applying the patches in this series would create >> the branch B, and then I saw that the tip of 'seen' after merging >> this topic still needed to have a lot more fixes according to "make >> coccicheck", I got a (false) impression that there are too many new >> violations from topics in flight, which was the primary source of my >> negative reaction against potential code churn. If we try the above >> exercise, perhaps there may not be too many topics that need fix-up >> beyond what we fix in the branch B, and if that is the case, I would >> not be so negative. > So I tried that myself, and the topic branch B was fairly > straightforward to create. > > We have ~60 topics in flight (not counting this one), and it turns > out that there is no topic that introduces new code that fails the > equals-null.cocci rule. IOW, the follow-up fixup per topic turns > out to be an empty set. > > So, I'd probably use the [01/23] and then a single ~5k lines patch > that was generated with equals-null.cocci rule as the branch B > above, let it percolate down from 'seen' to 'next' to eventually > 'master'. > > Thanks. That sounds like a good result. It may also be worth Elia cross checking against a previous release (v2.35.0?) for relatively recent introductions, to cover the potential revert scenario, just in case.. Philip
