Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> 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. Sorry if I were not clear, but I would vote for using 4alt/4 and remove debugging code. Unless there are folks who want to keep it, in which case I think trace2 is fine and I won't insist on removing what those folks, if any, want to keep. Between trace and trace2, I do not have a strong opinion but if we were adding something new, we would be adding to the latter? > 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
