Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:39:37PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 02:23:20AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> > But I thought that >> > following the sequence of logic (from "4096 is probably OK" to "whoops, >> > it's not") had some value to share. >> > >> of course, but you can just integrate that into the squashed commit message. >> having it all in one place makes it easier to follow. > > Yes, though I think having it as a separate patch makes it easier to > revisit later (e.g., by reverting or by replacing the patch during a > re-roll). I am on the fence. Having it squashed into the same step as it was introduced may reduce the patch count, but then it would not be easy to explain why 2048 is a reasonable default at that step when no code actually uses the variable, so the end result is not all that easier to follow and read, as that earlier step would be handwaving "2048 is good at the end of the series, trust me", unlike having it at the end. When 4096 is introduced as a "random number that seems larger than large enough" in the earlier step, it might be worth mentioning that it is a tentative default and may turn out to be larger than necessary in which case we may want to shrink it ;-)
