On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 04:22:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The end result looks good to me. I probably would have squashed at least > > 2+4 into one, and probably just squashed 3 into that as well. But I am > > OK with it as-is, too, and it is definitely diminishing returns to keep > > polishing it. > > I had the same impression. The endgame after applying all four > looks very sensible but the changes necessary to fix things while > keeping ZERO_EXISTS and NUMBER_EXISTS looked more or less like > unnecessary detour. I had a hard time picking between the two alternatives when assembling these patches myself. I ended up going with the approach here because I figured that the intermediate stages of the refactoring were sufficiently complicated that breaking them up made it easier for readers to digest the changes as a whole. > > Thanks for assembling it into a usable form. > > Yup. Will queue almost as-is (except for dropping the repeated > "commit-graph" on the title of the last step). Thank you! Thanks, Taylor
