From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0251F934 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 15:19:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389798AbgJLPTY (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:19:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46474 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389142AbgJLPTX (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:19:23 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x643.google.com (mail-pl1-x643.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::643]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89D3FC0613D0 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x643.google.com with SMTP id v12so2100273ply.12 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:19:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1LPNjDpwikIsDS/Np6M3niOG2yTwSNAY3oX8EW/ZHDA=; b=BK5cHbptzJGxHrDTEEv+o0LMxrS6fDK+CRVNyDADwFWJqLj2eRIm+LeFhxzdC5o2ST 0qQb8TzwnH3IZLulZyTIdNv42visRBZ3CduML6YXRuOLDwk9URBzMJfs1iCajBVF4bdE DC/ph8SKUsB2XsV3AmdgRSoSflS6/IMd5Ja+zLvqY869ebaHuZrMmxJPaJ6Fbeei80f8 OnroxleiLAW/PtHGgsTg9M6YcU401l9BsAptBGOh1m+7ABMaUxjgnPqJTmsjeVUjXAIP tb5IQTVi16ghqS7DtX6ZHRYSgGmxuTqOHXH3Ve64XddQB7rB0O+kxCEUqR1JjPOHxQSX JkBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1LPNjDpwikIsDS/Np6M3niOG2yTwSNAY3oX8EW/ZHDA=; b=AI8K490+yxDNITnHEBVvdXPB4dYz/xK/3OP5Akz8j6TALR9Ie27c3PfE2/OhhdTk29 +o+Fna2Levf9ThwnHLQRFLPpjeD7uDqoRb4GrOfDxM4Ps6u6jSJaitsjVrNJ5AUd0w+M CB3c4DG9YF6Etx1vRKvu8bm3DqQz23pf8ZXLzqVor+Ki235YBeQBJAyf9fa/zDTL7U6w YuJZIEliSVvDGhAI6o98vB01HpN+ICIFQ+0XQwaE9ASZdGOOGYhyVQpYRoi6fZz09Pmt goFUp+lf6v1YOmo7NQJFPsJhn/n9A3yRObswHHtW3FX/wuF75RLIddDqHyh/ezElzuON nagQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532OoRpHqabF2KbhFPoZB8eZ+q2sBPSe3VSLLNQ87sJlVb5evSBi MXmdUCXFIX+NnFQh4G2hppU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygQDYm3Y4GP0rER6In5ERjPA2+4jv25PbSNK/1d7CJqs1U7tLRxxnIPh4tGcWgOb8Nn8caew== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ee83:b029:d4:bdd6:cabe with SMTP id a3-20020a170902ee83b02900d4bdd6cabemr16496675pld.68.1602515962877; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2ce:200:a28c:fdff:fee1:cedb]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b10sm19125906pgm.64.2020.10.12.08.19.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:19:19 -0700 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys , Jonathan Tan , Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget , git , Jeff King , Han-Wen Nienhuys Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/13] reftable: utility functions Message-ID: <20201012151919.GA3740546@google.com> References: <4190da597e65bce072fa3c37c9410a56def4b489.1601568663.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <20201008014855.1416580-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > The `merge_bases_many()` function has only 33 lines of code, partially > duplicating `get_reachable_subset()`. Yet, it had a bug in it for two > years that was not found. > > How much worse will the situation be with your 431 lines of code. > > Even more so when you consider the fact that you intend to shove the same > duplication down libgit2's throat. It's "triplicating" code. Careful: you seem to be making a bunch of assumptions here (for example, around Han-Wen having some intent around shoving things down libgit2's throat), and you seem to be focusing on the person instead of the contribution. Would you mind restating your point in a way that is a little easier to process, for example by focusing on the effect that this patch would have on you as a Git developer? Thanks, Jonathan > So I find the argument you made above quite unconvincing.