From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: valgrind patches, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2009, #04; Mon, 19) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:57:57 -0500 Message-ID: <20090121235757.GA9668@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20090120141932.GB10688@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20090120232439.GA17746@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090121001551.GB18169@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090121003739.GA18373@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090121190757.GB21686@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 22 00:59:34 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LPmyj-0004im-VN for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:59:26 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754255AbZAUX6E (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:58:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754089AbZAUX6B (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:58:01 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:37294 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753016AbZAUX6B (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:58:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 22603 invoked by uid 107); 21 Jan 2009 23:58:06 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:58:06 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:57:57 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:17:35PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Phew. A lot of time, a lot of braincycles, and a lot of keystrokes wasted > on that subject, don't you think? Yes, especially considering my other email that said I had dropped the subject. ;P But thank you for discussing it. There is still some part of me that says "if you have no races, you don't have to worry about analyzing them." But I think your analysis is correct, and I am willing to let it go in the name of practicality. As for braincycles, I don't think they were necessarily wasted. The point of review is to double-check, and the discussion is how we resolve (even if we resolve that it is OK as-is). Of course there is such a thing as useless, annoying pedantry, but I hope this didn't count... :) -Peff