From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45CC4C83F35 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 17:42:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235323AbjHaRmU (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:42:20 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46274 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232708AbjHaRmT (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:42:19 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D445ECF3 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 25357 invoked by uid 109); 31 Aug 2023 17:42:16 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 17:42:16 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 9285 invoked by uid 111); 31 Aug 2023 17:42:16 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:42:16 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:42:15 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Oswald Buddenhagen Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] lower core.maxTreeDepth default to 2048 Message-ID: <20230831174215.GA3208283@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20230831061735.GA2702156@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20230831062320.GJ3185325@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:39:37PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 02:23:20AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > But I thought that > > following the sequence of logic (from "4096 is probably OK" to "whoops, > > it's not") had some value to share. > > > of course, but you can just integrate that into the squashed commit message. > having it all in one place makes it easier to follow. Yes, though I think having it as a separate patch makes it easier to revisit later (e.g., by reverting or by replacing the patch during a re-roll). -Peff