Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> + Once we've fully applied "the_repository.pending.cocci" we'll keep >> + this rules around for a while in "the_repository.cocci", to help any >> + outstanding topics and out-of-tree code to resolve textual or semantic >> + conflicts with these changes, but eventually we'll remove the >> + "the_repository.cocci" as a follow-up. >> + >> + So even if some of these functions are subsequently moved and/or split >> + into other or new headers there's no risk of this becoming stale, if >> + and when that happens the we should be removing these rules anyway. >> + >> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> > > Are people happy with the result? I think the previous round was > both read carefully on the central piece of the series, with some > spot checks to mechanical parts, and with the above clarification > the series is ready to be merged down to 'next'. Likewise, I'm also happy to see this merged to 'next'. My comments on v1 were sanity-checking how we use coccinelle in this series, not any actual objection :)
