Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 04:06:27PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> [Cooking] >> >> * ab/unused-annotation (2022-09-01) 2 commits >> (merged to 'next' on 2022-09-08 at dfc6123c6b) >> + git-compat-util.h: use "deprecated" for UNUSED variables >> + git-compat-util.h: use "UNUSED", not "UNUSED(var)" >> (this branch uses jk/unused-annotation.) >> >> Undoes 'jk/unused-annotation' topic and redoes it to work around >> Coccinelle rules misfiring false positives in unrelated codepaths. >> >> Will merge to 'master'. >> source: <cover-0.2-00000000000-20220825T170709Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx> > > I just want to double-check that the plan is to merge this to master as > noted above. I had thought you would revert jk/unused-annotation and > that I'd just re-roll it. I'm perfectly happy with either, but just > didn't want to add more confusion by posting that re-roll. ;) Sorry for making a confusing move. The thing is, the first patch in this two-patch series builds on top of your "UNUSED(var)" thing. Its patch text depends on "UNUSED(var)" being there, and it explains why we ended up using the "var UNUSED" syntax over "UNUSED(var)". It of course is the right thing to do because "UNUSED(var)" was already in 'next' when it was written. We could rewrite it to pretend as if "UNUSED(var)" never happened; we prefer to keep experiments that turned out to be dead end and we are unlikely to revisit out of our history. But I think it makes sense in this case to leave a record in our history that we consider that "UNUSED(var)" is a superiour implementation that we would have used and the only reason why we do not use it for now is Coccinelle. So, 'next' has the merge of 'jk/unused-annotation' reverted, but when 'ab/unused-annotation' was merged, the revert was reverted ;-). When it graduates to 'master', it will pull 'jk/unused-annotation' along with it and keeps "UNUSED(var)" in our history, but at its tip, what we end up using will be "var UNUSED".
