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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D353C1F54E for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:56:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="RdDebLoD"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1349860AbiHSR4V (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:56:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39368 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1351691AbiHSRzb (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:55:31 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE45402C2 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3F81AC6BA; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:36:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=iitTEKDu62DK2Sxfu5InNj22GjBDZ+P/rd1Cg3 hfYY4=; b=RdDebLoDUXai6MeAf8ZxMEppaBKC2Rpibr76cFAdTqiH8XlQ8KWj2v kbhiwcdS7y62BEM4vcf5crFQb3rHQr513kcfT1p9BLvS+zap8zwN5W3hT8BxS+za 6UDYg3UB2LkgbRtRelIAQS7VC2yf+z2SobeVO8BS3ISkjbXWEluRM= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F4B1AC6B9; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:36:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.5.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B85A61AC6B5; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:36:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Michael J Gruber , git@vger.kernel.org, Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sequencer: do not translate parameters to error_resolve_conflict() References: <09rn6r61-38qo-4s1q-q7qq-p5onp6p87o44@tzk.qr> <4684d54aeb3e00c96ba581c824a04e47b7236db7.1660828108.git.git@grubix.eu> <220818.86v8qp8uid.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <06s6r3s7-27nn-1o9s-1n7p-5413284r8740@tzk.qr> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:36:18 -0700 In-Reply-To: <06s6r3s7-27nn-1o9s-1n7p-5413284r8740@tzk.qr> (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 19 Aug 2022 11:26:35 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6F8AFE9A-1FE5-11ED-A2BA-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> Perhaps we should have the error_resolve_conflict() function take a >> "enum replay_action" instead? > > We could do that. We could also just delete the sequencer code. It's just > that both are a bad idea. Sorry, but I do not quite understand this comment. You may think some parts of the sequencer code are a bad idea but I think overall it is eminently useful and usable enough that it does not make sense to "just delete the sequencer code"---if there are things we find bad ideas in there, we should fix them instead, no? In any case, can you keep the conversation more civil? I have to say that between you two, you may by no means be the only one who is unnecessarily abrasive, but if you do not understand why the other side suggests a solution you feel you do not like, you can ask more constructively why they think it is a good idea, without assuming that they are doing so only to block you. Or explain why you think it is a bad idea by showing the consequences of their solution, e.g. "there are 20 callsites, among which only 1 has the enum readily available so it would be a lot of churn to give the other 19 the enum, even though the error helper may become simpler with a single switch() statement if we allow it to take an enum." or something (I know this function is called only from very few places, so 1 out of 20 is a totally made-up reasoning that would not apply in this case, but you get the idea). Thanks.