Re: [PATCH] chainlint.pl: Extend regexp pattern for /proc/cpuinfo on Linux SPARC

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

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

>> I was wondering if we want to first add the "reasonable fallback"
>> Eric mentioned ealier, and then build on top, whose result may look
>> like the attached.
>
> I'm fine with a well-focused patch which just fixes the reported
> problem; the "reasonable fallback" change can be layered atop at any
> time.

Yeah, I never suggested to do these in a single patch.  Since I
would think that it is easier to do and review a patch that cleans
up the code and adds a reasonable fallback before adding new support
for sparc or alpha (after all, such a clean-up is also for longer
term maintainability---by definition, it must be easier to add new
support to the result of a clean-up than the original, or it is not
a clean-up), I suggested to first add such a change.  What you saw
was how the result of "then build on top" would have looked like.

> I had a more all-inclusive change in mind. These number-of-cpu checks
> are in order from least to most costly but they are not necessarily
> mutually exclusive. As such, my thinking was that the logic would fall
> through to the next check if the preceding check produced zero or
> nonsense.

OK.  All the more reason to clean-up first, then?  If we pile more
on top of the current structure, it would make the later clean-up
more cumbersome, wouldn't it?

Thanks.