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=-0.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, 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 DDCA81F852 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 19:15:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1353721AbiBCTPy (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Feb 2022 14:15:54 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40418 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1344163AbiBCTPx (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Feb 2022 14:15:53 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com (mail-pl1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27F8EC061714 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:15:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id k17so3059369plk.0 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 11:15:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=zkd5ddIkn2myZwvhGRPqQ7tHRak0kt0pw/Id2at13yU=; b=no2DcB4O98pUQsm6Z0lJUVhq9BlFEoefJnp+6C1hM9rcczHet/kaTLvkTQsg3H39th F8peIX3B2Hv3xg6ld3HVr6K4poKzEvUKYuBZMC9+WvYnhF11nuo+pURrNr7mot4wwakJ vcLMbrHthxywmI2OFwCf2qNx7nZN43GIi8/xS4HdHNBk0Ypxro1joTW792t4g16eQp63 yb7h2FkHWVFpVIMdbgA3g+zhlCVXt61R/ZdrCZipKbh6dHc1KCFnlmORcxExesScd8PT 7WeBisTl7DokTBIZPIHtqP5ItHtIF0YsXmRTkzXoZwB1hvvRyxhvorfeoMe5M+YASOKQ okhw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=zkd5ddIkn2myZwvhGRPqQ7tHRak0kt0pw/Id2at13yU=; b=2+lZHfW+qT9aeodKunok3W9Nhvtody+9g+h8LvjHgmAxUAZky9QHZbPLKQV6zjLAHm /+iZCCdwDKYMrPbtLhsJUU7//Sm0m3SfPU70ABPWLupuCZ6A8w7J/ilG3C4qgGWoHF1b 4hX+yyFJkrb6RF7z4QOYNqyCuWJv+xh3JBSNK/7XnbOVo/nTt2dpo2xTOcR88PXLha73 5504U5uCk8/GOU6/Sk/B/ptE2p6l7WYseYOBakGWHCUMUQR8Lz4HK1gCeX7N51UMmGnF OYIvIsy5ZBzYhEnDxsqRJhAH0yPxVkTc/zD0A1FBOFresctWSaKbQSBrme/cEO37jg4K W0YQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531JXNVet9wqxh+QVTbxtxKOiBrAhE+n6Gt7wiGvEN4S39nhzz2R CV+qP0KUodMoY7+Iz9j5rzc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrGm0vV5cOfhnFWMDqWbk26X0HaKlmPK3n3trpwSTzFQqEeakfnY63aUrJqPyZN7fwB/5BLg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ab8e:: with SMTP id f14mr37235458plr.103.1643915752548; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 11:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:15c:289:200:b5c2:580b:9b41:56b2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y21sm762274pfr.136.2022.02.03.11.15.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Feb 2022 11:15:52 -0800 (PST) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Han-Wen Nienhuys Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Han-Wen Nienhuys Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] refs.h: make all flags arguments unsigned References: <220201.86ilty9vq2.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <220203.8635kz6d2o.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 11:15:51 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Han-Wen Nienhuys's message of "Thu, 3 Feb 2022 19:33:02 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 7:27 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > Yes, enums or not, what I was also pointing out in >> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/220201.86ilty9vq2.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/ >> > is that changing just one logical set of flags at a time would make this >> > much easier to review. >> >> Another thing to consider is how to make this play better with other >> topics in flight. Basing a huge single patch on top of 'seen' is a >> way to ensure that the patch will never be useful. There won't be a >> good time when such a topic can graduate. The topic will also have >> a hard time keeping up with what new topics add while waiting for >> what happen to be in 'seen' today (some of which may even go away >> without graduating) all graduate. >> >> Limiting the scope to small and more stable subset of flags that are >> in 'master' and does not conflict (e.g. no new bit defined to the >> set of flags, no existing bit gets removed, no new callers that use >> the bitset introduced) with other topics would incrementally improve >> the code base, and makes progress in the sense that it reduces the >> remaining work. > > OK. But do we agree we want to use enums? Me and AEvar are in favor, > anyone against? No strong preference either way from me.