Re: [PATCH v15 0/7] branch: delete-merged

[Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>]

On 17/06/2026 12:17, Harald Nordgren wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 12:01 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
 > >> Our SubmittingPatches documentation recommends waiting for the
>> discussion to settle before sending a new version. When you know someone
>> is going send more comments on a series it is a good idea to wait for
>> them before sending a new version to avoid too much churn on the list
>> which makes it hard for people to keep up. I'm not going to read this
>> version in detail because I know another version will be needed but I
>> did spot a couple of things in the summary below.
> 
> Got it. I think I am waiting a fair bit between sending new versions.
> My last version here was 2 days ago.

Right but you sent that version a few hours after I'd posted a partial 
review which concluded by saying I'd finish it the next day. If you send 
a new version when you are waiting for further comments it clutters the 
list because you know you're going to have to post another revision when 
you get the rest of the comments. Anyone reviewing the interim version 
is wasting their time. When you receive review comments, by all means 
start thinking about them and updating your local copy but please don't 
post a new version until the discussion on the previous version has 
settled down.

>> Not changing force sounds like a bad idea. The whole point of unpacking
>> the flags at the start of the function is to avoid accidental
>> regressions. Unpacking the flags into separate variables means the rest
>> of the function does not need to know that the function arguments have
>> changed.
> 
> My reason for keeping it like this was to avoid the slightly awkward
> double re-assignment of both flag and boolean:
> 
> ```
> case FILTER_REFS_REMOTES:
> ...
>      flags |= DELETE_BRANCH_FORCE;
>      force = true;
> ```
> 
> But your way is likely still better, because the definitions at the
> top of the function are clearer.

Oh, are we passing flags on to another function? If so I'd missed that 
and it does complicate things as we don't want two sources of truth.

Thanks

Phillip

> 
> Harald