From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] repack: rewrite the shell script in C. Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:46:29 +0200 Message-ID: <5215EC05.4020605@kdbg.org> References: <5213EF74.7020408@googlemail.com> <1377038334-15799-1-git-send-email-stefanbeller@googlemail.com> <5214B852.7090504@googlemail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stefan Beller , git@vger.kernel.org, mfick@codeaurora.org, apelisse@gmail.com, pclouds@gmail.com, iveqy@iveqy.com, gitster@pobox.com, mackyle@gmail.com To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 22 12:54:26 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VCSX1-0000ke-5z for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:54:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752814Ab3HVKyQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:54:16 -0400 Received: from bsmtp5.bon.at ([195.3.86.187]:31501 "EHLO bsmtp.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752503Ab3HVKyP (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:54:15 -0400 Received: from [10.75.26.165] (178.115.250.165.wireless.dyn.drei.com [178.115.250.165]) by bsmtp.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376E3130052; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:54:12 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 21.08.2013 15:07, schrieb Matthieu Moy: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> But as these follow up changes heavily rely on the very first patch >> I will first try to get that right, meaning accepted into pu. >> Then I can send patches with these proposals such as making more >> functions. > > I think it's better to get the style right before, to avoid doubling the > review effort (review a hard-to-review patch first, and then re-review a > style-fix one). If by "style fix" you mean "coding style fix", I agree. But, IMO, refactoring the long function can wait because the long function is easier to compare to the shell script, and I think that is more important later when you need to dig the history. It is already too late to save review effort. -- Hannes