From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10E51F4F8 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934981AbcIVUXh (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:23:37 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50244 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934727AbcIVUXg (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:23:36 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8F03F018; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:23:34 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=WBkapiBtrUX59IK34PwTuBLCzS4=; b=sOaLov byIAr1xjFf6kd6AX8tGXXM1Er/cMwiLLVSrhKXetP/kv7Sr9KttLSFfP45fH2Ekm gjlV6NN795BE3nAQ8SJaCsua0pSKaQFbjS0+r8cEyhkjPXYhX18d2prNZvZwX8id CLOJkiGUf/Xk3qxXHZdJQxAWnX/O+/TTjrdk4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=dI1F4bGBZ8z+12kIbyVGoLIYunqWnY00 vxPRuGp0YjKc690JaRxe6i3MnXR0zcoWeNkAuOa2WQ8M57kYpKvEkViGrNJMAoR3 AFo9Xn8Plns5AfaJCFSfQ4hd70tUj6CfFvecq2SGllfpsR8iIITNEC7SVmtu8o6R m/2ctLBoh30= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6BC13F017; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AFF63F016; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:23:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: santiago@nyu.edu Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, sunshine@sunshineco.com, walters@verbum.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] builtin/tag: move format specifier to global var References: <20160922185317.349-1-santiago@nyu.edu> <20160922185317.349-2-santiago@nyu.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:23:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160922185317.349-2-santiago@nyu.edu> (santiago@nyu.edu's message of "Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:53:12 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6F9CAF38-8102-11E6-9713-C26412518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org santiago@nyu.edu writes: > From: Santiago Torres > > The format specifier will be likely used in other functions throughout > git tag. One likely candidate to require format strings in the future is > the gpg_verify_tag function. However, changing the signature of > functions such as for_each_ref or verify_tag would be quite burdensome. I do not understand the above excuse. for-each-ref takes a callback data pointer exactly because it wants you to be able to extend what data the callback function gets without changing its signature. builtin/tag.c::verify_tag() is a helper static to the file--why should it be "burdensome" to change it to fit your needs? Adding technical debt by going backwards is never a good idea especially done to add a new feature that is not desperately needed.