On Tue, Dec 20 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 12/19/22 7:49 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I think these three patches were designed to be "oops, that was >> wrong and here is a band-aid" follow-up fixes on top of what was >> back then in 'next'. Now the base topic has been kicked out of >> 'next' together with these, we can afford to roll them into the base >> series before merging it back to 'next', but due to things generally >> being slow toward the end of the year, that hasn't happened yet. > > I wasn't expecting to re-roll the base topic, but I'll get > started on that now. > > However, the comments in this review are barely actionable. Skimming over my comments again the actionable bits are: * 1/3: Commit says it's removing an unused param, also has while-at-it typo fix, maybe split that up? * 1/3: Commit says <same>, has while-at-it removal of documenting what a function's return value means, maybe keep that? * 1/3: Commit says <same>, has seeming while-at-it discussion of what another parameter is expected to contain (you replied saying they were related) * 2/3: Question about whether reading "r" v.s. "the_repository" has an observable behavior change. If yes let's add a test, if no let's note "it's for good measure". * 3/3: A question about whether we really didn't need GIT_TEST_BUNDLE_URI. You managed to convince me that no, we don't * 3/3: Question about what the 2nd paragraph of the commit message is trying to convey (you didn't reply to this bit). The actionable thing would be to clarify it, or remove it. > They provide very little value especially for how verbose they are. I agree that this was all of relatively little value, these are all rather trivial patches after all, and the bundle-uri feature is opt-in and WIP at this point. But even trivial patches can be helped along by review. I'm just trying to help this topic land & show Junio that others have reviewed this carefully. I agree that my E-Mails are verbose, sorry. This isn't my native language, it's a balancing act between trying to be unambiguously understood, and verbosity. sorry. > frustrated to see such a drive-by review so late in the process. This I'm confused by. You submitted this ~1 week ago on the 12th, Junio rewound the parent topic out of "next" on the 14th. Isn't this the appropriate time to comment on both this topic & its parent?
