From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@openai.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>,
"Patrick Steinhardt" <ps@pks.im>,
"Elijah Newren" <newren@gmail.com>,
"Jonathan Tan" <jonathantanmy@fastmail.com>,
"René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>,
"Derrick Stolee" <stolee@gmail.com>,
"Ted Nyman" <tnyman@openai.com>,
"Daniel Reynaud" <dreynaud@openai.com>,
"Aaron Friel" <friel@openai.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] negotiator/skipping.c: parse parents before queueing
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2026 07:30:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqh5icbial.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <atqSs0yzXw0cf3cH@com-79390> (Taylor Blau's message of "Thu, 22 Oct 2026 17:48:19 -0500")
Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@openai.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 03:34:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Perhaps rev_list_push() should mark the commit as 'SEEN' only after
>> repo_parse_commit() succeeds?
>
> I considered this but ultimately decided against it, since the default
> negotiator does:
> ...
> There are various callers of rev_list_push() in the default negotiator,
> but all include SEEN in the provided 'mark'.
It is understandable that we do not want to widen the scope of the
patch by adding a preparatory "fix the existing ones" step, but I do
not think "the existing ones make the same mistake" is particularly
a good excuse to add new one. Would a hybrid approach to (1) avoid
copying a mistake to new code and (2) document near the new code and/or
in the log message that the difference is deliberate and fixing existing
ones are #leftoverbits and not addressed in this commit?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-23 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-19 20:17 [PATCH] negotiator/skipping.c: parse parents before queueing Taylor Blau
2026-10-21 6:49 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-10-21 19:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-22 20:38 ` Taylor Blau
2026-10-22 21:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-22 22:49 ` Taylor Blau
2026-10-22 21:21 ` [PATCH v2] " Taylor Blau
2026-10-22 22:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-22 22:48 ` Taylor Blau
2026-10-23 14:30 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2026-10-24 0:03 ` Taylor Blau
2026-10-24 2:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-26 23:49 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] negotiator: parse commits " Taylor Blau
2026-10-26 23:49 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] negotiator/default.c: mark commits seen only after parsing Taylor Blau
2026-10-26 23:49 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] negotiator/skipping.c: parse parents before queueing Taylor Blau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqh5icbial.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=dreynaud@openai.com \
--cc=friel@openai.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jonathantanmy@fastmail.com \
--cc=l.s.r@web.de \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
--cc=stolee@gmail.com \
--cc=tnyman@openai.com \
--cc=ttaylorr@openai.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.