From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7EA1F404 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:13:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932212AbeAWVM6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:12:58 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54974 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932146AbeAWVM5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:12:57 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6550AC936F; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:12:57 -0500 (EST) 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=f63zER1Du81iDCXgTrGjXzz0WLg=; b=WNTX1N PVmRbH3rJBdbgD6g+KBvAmrRuXTqQbwsTg6ANKfp2tzbUL/CR2YoN0d+J2YcuQLy VJK/hVv0mW0fSrwrVw+fuE7m1IhJl1wQIxtlGMZW4LjFik4s3GLcqpj/D7GF48/j 9cexKYIWn6xcvUKiVPrZ/deD6udZPtnga2PHg= 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=tsyOQxjB7KyPwESMnL2/ewdF3BxpAvJy K4UMuzno5k2WKTSGCepSmM1S+08jkV88sXxXayGfuMuFVsuoaq5TjUGZqa9r4FBZ AqIHyvw2JrntP1o3S8gEcbLACmoY1ISvnv3z4HDb+DGO0HlcspFvsmSBGuFeuv/G Zj3u69LYgJw= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2C0C936E; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:12:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD91EC936D; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:12:56 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Simon Ruderich , Lars Schneider , lars.schneider@autodesk.com, git@vger.kernel.org, tboegi@web.de, j6t@kdbg.org, sunshine@sunshineco.com, ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com, Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] convert: add 'working-tree-encoding' attribute References: <20180120152418.52859-1-lars.schneider@autodesk.com> <20180120152418.52859-6-lars.schneider@autodesk.com> <20180121142222.GA10248@ruderich.org> <05265803-BD74-4667-ABB5-9752E55A5015@gmail.com> <20180123005401.GG26357@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180123102558.GA3878@ruderich.org> <20180123162016.GD13068@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:12:55 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20180123162016.GD13068@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:20:16 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2EF7AAFE-0082-11E8-BB69-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > But with Coccinelle, it's a lot easier to apply the change tree-wide, and > to convert topics in flight as they get merged. The maintainer still > gets conflicts with topics-in-flight that touch converted areas, though. > So I'd be curious to hear if Junio's opinion has changed at all. There are two distinct kinds of cost on such a tree-wide change. Conflicts with in-flight topic cannot be avoided other than truly avoiding, i.e. refraining from touching the areas in flux, but it is primarily what the maintainer does, and with help with rerere it can be reasonably well automated ;-) But the cost of reviewing could become a lot smaller when our tools are trustworthy. As long as we can be reasonably certain that the tree-wide change patch does one thing it is intended to do and nothing else (e.g. comes with mechanical reproduction recipe that allows the patch to be independently audited), I do not have much problem with such a clean-up. The "avoid tree-wide change" rule still applies for things that allows a lot of subjective judgment and discretion. I do not know of a good way to reduce reviewer costs on those kind of changes. Thanks.