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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDEE1F453 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:49:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728413AbfARRtk (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:49:40 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com ([209.85.128.66]:37496 "EHLO mail-wm1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728320AbfARRtk (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:49:40 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id g67so5285363wmd.2 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:49:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=FsmCUZ+x76XQtqTEfxrAg4ZDlQCpgrddmufqiAbGOvM=; b=aHKNyPqzHKhN6P8GNRF0tCyV4AIwOMqzAXpvbcP7v9Qv6vN90k2Bff19odbhsIcG97 70JBrTkBkbR9TIxsG2gIBaOB6K9SnTmOUUZdABjCkueCHO582otleJiUXfmX0fHG10zr YGHNZXmX4S+6/v/MuiBBhe5j2bMwImuzbn9J4e+u5DX9GYfe+wXeLh3/MG3ZrWM47S5H mNU/SKfsjqF+JFYndLF6F2sj4sA8DrXzsCExUcEhyuzH3UpE37fhqFtEdM98o4OUnrjj bxG71lC2coOzKKjakFaSNVLO2a9srIB6tliDqlRAizpfSTygZopR9L9lDltRRireD3pX CWAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=FsmCUZ+x76XQtqTEfxrAg4ZDlQCpgrddmufqiAbGOvM=; b=lY0S9V7MdOUS+H56cIlc9cFJcnO80XpKsnecq2Q17dtO/6nsAIL++UnQfOUQ6KY2uY OWivo8aH4HwsKUvfXhNiT442eJ9NJ+WnhIr00C0vP5GX7+1FJCPGm8BaKcnvG/L7r86G lyMAaYaN2pvgzcFjP/akkp1d3k02z+Q1i3TqDc9sxkbjOW7PaPU3I3wlBB9OvWIB8Q3Y 0aTgLGwaZYFzPvTZ7XgR89OYJqErRUT0t/wKebVq3ULm3dOPjgjVbjA6bGTDM8baEk9Q YEcIL4W6hG7yZuaWtbmHXEJ9Fip9hmZBVFRAZbV4RwVjUgZWvMrFs21YGF6pnvZ56TLp g8QQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfqYHa8unxuSXep13yJ1wWqxGP/chkvJD2dUVBnHJ/AiIYua4AA AcepBuD+RuzVKGz8I8ClsgM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6/AU9fqpiGd6J9ldC03zSXswmOYBe87spfMGbYeNH/U6deihj2vR0gACO2i/x00gf6NyLXdQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:e910:: with SMTP id q16mr16677452wmc.68.1547833778334; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:49:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (168.50.187.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.187.50.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f191sm1385846wmg.12.2019.01.18.09.49.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:49:37 -0800 (PST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu , git@vger.kernel.org, t.gummerer@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/26] Convert "git stash" to C builtin References: Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:49:37 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 18 Jan 2019 13:06:40 +0100 (STD)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Junio, > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu writes: >> >> > This is a new iteration of git-stash which also takes >> > sd/stash-wo-user-name into account. I cherry-picked >> > some of dscho's commits (from [1]) to keep the scripted >> > version of `git stash` as `git-legacy-stash`. >> >> I took a brief look and left a comment on 04/26 last year. I had >> some time blocked for this topic today to take another look at the >> whole series again. Thanks for working on this. >> >> It seems that the last three or so steps are new, relative to the >> previous round. I made sure that what is added back at step 24 >> exactly matches the result of merging sd/stash-wo-user-name into the >> current 'master', but such a manual validation is error prone. Is >> it possible to avoid "remove the scripted one prematurely at step >> 23, and then add it back as 'oops, that was wrong' fix at step 24"? >> That would have been much more robust approach. > > Sorry, I should have thought of that. My mistake. > > As it is, Thomas verified that they are identical, so should we go forward > with ps/stash-in-c as-is? I'd prefer that... Yes, before sending the message you are responding to, I made sure the scripted version added back is identical to the current one, and also there is no in-flight updates/fixes to the scripted one. The benefit that would come from a possible reroll to start the series from the last three patches would be fairly limited. Such a reorganized series would have allowed investigation of regressions and bugs during the development comparing the original and rewritten implementations slightly easier, but experience from seeing the evolution of these "reimplement in C" topics tells us that we see major part of the regression fallouts after the series is declared "feature complete" anyway, so in the long run, the less-than-ideal organization of the topic does not matter much in practice.