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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 CF8511F8C4 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 02:12:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229581AbhBECJl (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:09:41 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:59099 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229508AbhBECJi (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:09:38 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA315B6CA5; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:08:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=TpgNECCFprFWdSZeCyyE4IqWOsU=; b=Xv9Ow6 WiT1YGsLgZz6tMzxzOGtZ5SyeDlzCaYF8N7kBo2EOfJtYW3xUJKswuMTHTtaMCHk nElNcW6DaW6x3+ilga+clFWlqI+RvUuspE/R+XGagvZqhmisbNIoj5w7LMP1Jbj5 Oc+ObUaz9t+WFUVBif7ef0xUMTTEmbTiVt6CM= 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=QwU+6CFWL1KHOQgaJFyBDOJ+PDeiNFdp 8laB+RARPXCkOhXjAQsRWM0r3ZCKhZql0oTuuvcQww1jHibJS5Y9hzrNe3wnJLeL sBEDuhPJ1qsLD7onP+5Cw57PMTmzh++4bwzvVRz3pHtXa8DBdjyg/WNqNf+m7eTB VzMCTbSShvI= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C230BB6CA4; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:08:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D36CB6CA3; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:08:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, me@ttaylorr.com, l.s.r@web.de, szeder.dev@gmail.com, Chris Torek , Derrick Stolee , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] Refactor chunk-format into an API References: Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 18:08:54 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget's message of "Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:01:39 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1981FD98-6757-11EB-A3DC-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: > This is a restart on the topic previously submitted [1] but dropped because > ak/corrected-commit-date was still in progress. This version is based on > that branch. I've read the topic through, and found it a pleasant read. There are some questionable use of integer types, some uneven application of casts, and the reading side API is somewhat underdocumented, but the overall direction looked quite sane. I am undecided if I should expect a reroll, or declare what we have "already good enough" for 'next' and expect incremental refinements, though. A reroll that catches all nits would certainly make the resulting topic's history nicer for future developers to work with, but its also a pain to re-read essentially the same patches again, so...