Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Lazy-load trees when reading commit-graph

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 4/8/2018 7:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> If I were doing it myself, I probably would have folded patches 1 and 3
>> together. They are touching all the same spots, and it would be an error
>> for any case converted in patch 1 to not get converted in patch 3. I'm
>> assuming you caught them all due to Coccinelle, though IMHO it is
>> somewhat overkill here. By folding them together the compiler could tell
>> you which spots you missed.
> Yeah, that approach would probably be a more sensible way to assure
> the safety/correctness of the result to readers better.

I don't understand how folding the patches makes the correctness 
clearer, since the rename (1/4) is checked by the compiler and the 
Coccinelle script (3/4) only works after that rename is complete.

The only thing I can imagine is that it makes smaller patch emails, 
since there is only one large patch instead of two. In this case, I 
prefer to make changes that are easier to check by automation (compiler 
and coccinelle).

However, I will defer to the experts in this regard. If a v3 is 
necessary, then I will fold the commits together.

Thanks,
-Stolee