From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Cc: git <git@vger.kernel.org>, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] for_each_*_object: store flag definitions in a single location
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 20:33:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180811003319.GA29490@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZ0eN5eaBM8HjLVFpW8-ph3g0ym=-4ONTA7pgV=k3oz-Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 04:39:14PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > IMHO the whole for_each_*_object() interface should go in there (it even
> > has packed_git defined there already!). I think I'd still just as soon
> > do it on top of this series, but it might not be too bad to do as part
> > of a re-roll.
>
> Yeah, I realize that I distracted myself and ranted about a different thing
> other than the quality of this patch. (We had a couple of internal discussions
> about project velocity and contributor happiness and I personally think this
> derailing is some sort of anti pattern as fixing things like these is easy
> as compared to user visible things such as file formats or configs.
> Sorry for that.)
It's a tough line to draw sometimes. This kind of ancillary discussion
is often what spurs further work, so I think the discussions are good to
have. And sometimes the right answer is "yeah, while we're here, let's
clean this up, too". This may even be one of those cases.
But sometimes the right answer is to push back a little and say "you're
right, but let's deal with it later". And maybe later never even
happens, but in that case maybe it wasn't that important in the first
place. :) Or maybe it takes the same point coming up a few times to
decide it's worth pursuing.
I wish I had a good guideline for when to start such a discussion and
when to push back. I mostly just follow my instincts, and my answer (on
either side of that conversation) might change from day to day. I think
the most important guideline is for everybody to be accepting of both
sides of the conversation (i.e., it's OK to prod a little about
ancillary issues as long as "yes, but not right now" is an acceptable
answer).
And then sometimes you catch me in a philosophical mood...
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-11 0:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-10 23:07 [PATCH 0/7] speeding up cat-file by reordering object access Jeff King
2018-08-10 23:09 ` [PATCH 1/7] for_each_*_object: store flag definitions in a single location Jeff King
2018-08-10 23:27 ` Stefan Beller
2018-08-10 23:31 ` Jeff King
2018-08-10 23:33 ` Jeff King
2018-08-10 23:39 ` Stefan Beller
2018-08-11 0:33 ` Jeff King [this message]
2018-08-10 23:09 ` [PATCH 2/7] for_each_*_object: take flag arguments as enum Jeff King
2018-08-10 23:11 ` [PATCH 3/7] for_each_*_object: give more comprehensive docstrings Jeff King
2018-08-10 23:15 ` [PATCH 4/7] for_each_packed_object: support iterating in pack-order Jeff King
2018-08-15 13:28 ` Derrick Stolee
2018-08-16 17:36 ` Jeff King
2018-08-10 23:16 ` [PATCH 5/7] t1006: test cat-file --batch-all-objects with duplicates Jeff King
2018-08-10 23:17 ` [PATCH 6/7] cat-file: rename batch_{loose,packed}_object callbacks Jeff King
2018-08-10 23:24 ` [PATCH 7/7] cat-file: support "unordered" output for --batch-all-objects Jeff King
2018-08-13 18:45 ` [PATCH 0/7] speeding up cat-file by reordering object access Jonathan Tan
2018-08-14 18:13 ` [PATCH 0/4] finishing touches on jk/for-each-object-iteration Jeff King
2018-08-14 18:14 ` [PATCH 1/4] cat-file: use oidset check-and-insert Jeff King
2018-08-14 18:18 ` [PATCH 2/4] cat-file: split batch "buf" into two variables Jeff King
2018-08-14 18:20 ` [PATCH 3/4] cat-file: use a single strbuf for all output Jeff King
2018-08-14 19:30 ` René Scharfe
2018-08-14 19:39 ` Jeff King
2018-08-14 18:21 ` [PATCH 4/4] for_each_*_object: move declarations to object-store.h Jeff King
2018-08-15 14:05 ` [PATCH 0/7] speeding up cat-file by reordering object access Derrick Stolee
2018-08-16 17:39 ` Jeff King
2018-08-16 18:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-08-16 19:45 ` Jeff King
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=20180811003319.GA29490@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=sbeller@google.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).