On 10/6/22 1:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 09:13:41AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> >>> The other obvious option is to just delete this debug code, and remove >>> the unused parameter. I'm not sure if the trace would ever be useful or >>> not, and I am mostly retaining it out of the logic of "well, somebody >>> bothered to write it". I think the const issue has been there since >>> e810e06357 (attr: tighten const correctness with git_attr and >>> match_attr, 2017-01-27). >> >> And here's what that would look like. > > I highly suspect that I was the one who bothered, and while I admit > it was useful while developing the attribute subsystem, I haven't > needed it for the past 10 or so years. > > So unless there are some folks who want to throw everything into the > trace2 floodstream, I would prefer this alternative over the other > one. Are you implying that you want to use the second version, that deletes the information entirely? I'm leaning towards deleting it. If not, and we should keep using traces, I do notice that the original version of the patch uses trace_printf_key() instead of a trace2 method. I think this is fine, too, since it's likely only to be used by Git developers, who could look for which type of trace to use. Thanks, -Stolee
