Re: [PATCH 10/11] strvec: drop argv_array compatibility layer

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> And here's a diff between your current "seen" tip and what I get by
> merging in this updated version and then doing any necessary resolution
> or fixups on top. I'll leave it as an exercise for how you might want to
> pull the content across. :)
>
> I do note that most of the new call-sites are ones that would be better
> off using child_process.args, and reviewers (myself and others) have
> suggested that. So those direct uses of the "argv" member may go away
> anyway.

Yup, I do not think we should spend too much cycles on this at this
point, as Stolee's topic and others that add new callsites are
likely to be rerolled at least one more time.

It is tempting to declare that these 11 patches are now perfect and
we'll stop the world and fast-track it down to 'master', while
discarding any and all topics in flight that changes anything
related to argv-array, and then we ask authors of these discarded
topics to send in a rebase on top of the 'master' with strvec API
already in.  But I somehow think we do not have to take such a
drastic measure to adjust the world around this topic ;-)