On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:59 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 22 2023, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > From: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> > > Re earlier comments: If I rebase to make this the first commit > everything compiles, i.e. nothing here relied on the earlier split-offs > of cache.h into other headers. > > You need to make a choice of whether to first split out cache.h, and > then do commits like these, or the other way around. > > I'm not sure whether it's better to do it the other way around. If you > do that it's clear e.g. add-interactive.c's implicit dependency on > tree.h via commit.h has nothing to do with what would be the subsequent > split-up of cache.h. > > Or maybe this is fine. I'm just trying to get some picture of what > depends on what in this series... Yes, there is some freedom about the ordering of patches, and I had to make a choice. I found a number of the cleanups like this one for commit.h interspersed with the other changes, but I intentionally grouped them at the end to get a good high level overview, namely: (A) Continue splitting declarations from cache.h to separate headers (B) Do other header cleanups found during that work I could have reversed the order, but since the series was motivated and organized around (A), it made more sense to me to put those patches first. Besides, the last time I moved a few miscellaneous cleanup patches to the front of the series, someone else responded thinking the purpose and motivation was about those first few patches[1], so I wanted to avoid a repeat of that problem. ;-) [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BFZBWTG1VF6N8teVMYxoUdOeciKGwPq1g-G1K5--My5uQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
