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-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 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 E989F1F9F4 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 18:34:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231959AbhKVShY (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:37:24 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45874 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230394AbhKVShX (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:37:23 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CB47C061574 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:34:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id x15so80673416edv.1 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:34:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version; bh=2MKW+465dUj+27Cb6VvMzDMIKu9r4slad6XjPlTp7Uw=; b=VGI7d00+iCFtBTEHEBT59Ks6ADCTbXSVejMM0bgiZnou2Djqgb1tlgLxNhGCDNBqP5 UIkg+LcU/86uDqCGKlP9WXuutrOMnyAX+6hcsQCzSGuh+pSWkdtIZ4BssujOkY1LuyUS klvlKKaRdEBRxNXeK0H+00/c1j2DCwIGMFzw2oaKRTrIJ0OrKyZDSR0D0dyEM3bdbS/J xnltyD+BI6NOvQZddOpbu8TBKa6ijuxvwmh7LhxhfVo+HGTfXq7OK9+wIhVP1s9VVCCk LM0bwVzupjzvWQoRt2XDEjCRXBcd3kSc6Uy3f4O4yJ4ccO9Ewzb9VNWpEkYxcvJ0KqSU 5ivQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version; bh=2MKW+465dUj+27Cb6VvMzDMIKu9r4slad6XjPlTp7Uw=; b=IWiAXIGwsXUnX3KBYyeLaWs3HnA/KmiIG97GHXpOzJE2/c95Z07f4woubRpj/Ny0QE +hAUcsTnt/qEfixPdX3UuS1S/pXwuCs8Qu5XRSM71H8vmMQAROyxRVvDSr2qevlz7eML vW3gKKB0rkuDQB5XKs6K4QE/jU3m/mOmxnXSVfFoHmgGG1O5anCDMcoO9WXIrhP57NGZ IA5BVkOLBlaZy7boPwr1/WTEfDdRvrZFV3WlT09qFx1xStJG703vdrcYLikrKybUD8EM dPlzYKvZ14H5qCMPChm5i4qKojFhX0Yy6YqbQEZqH+IpZt2ICbz7zSHB2Tr+cOM9Tvhn Dm2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533edxHGIcVrLIC+/N1MKA3SSCst1x80q0qSIulFJXlzzTpszU/B 46AhNK2waYHcnSy+1scbB5w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/0N/H6+t1ATfR+kf3AQizUX5dC541gX+p2d2LLVg9wpuRlYKJ+qk3wbGUUz+9DzfKBbqGaA== X-Received: by 2002:a50:da48:: with SMTP id a8mr67717908edk.146.1637606054464; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:34:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmgdl (j120189.upc-j.chello.nl. [24.132.120.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id nd22sm4347474ejc.98.2021.11.22.10.34.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:34:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from avar by gmgdl with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1mpE8r-001AKR-El; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:34:13 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, Enzo Matsumiya Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] run-command API: get rid of "argv" Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:33:10 +0100 References: User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.6.9 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <211122.86o86cxcnu.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 22 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > >> I'm on the fence on how important it is to do these cleanups. IMHO they >> are half of what really sells the change in the first place (since the >> other bug can pretty easily be fixed without it). > > Yes. I actually think these have much better value for their > complexity, compared to the other "half" of the topic ;-) > >> But maybe it is piling too much onto what is already a pretty big >> change. The cleanups could be done individually later. > > I am OK with that, too. But I do agree that the series is too big > to sit in front of a fix for a bug, for which a much simpler and > focused approach has already been discussed, to block it. I'm happy to re-roll this on top of the more narrow fix. FWIW the bug's there since at least v2.30.0 (just tested that, probably much older), so in that sense there's no urgency either way.