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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A487C433EF for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51201610A2 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229833AbhINRIK (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:08:10 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:47172 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229562AbhINRII (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:08:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 24574 invoked by uid 109); 14 Sep 2021 17:06:43 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:06:43 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 25441 invoked by uid 111); 14 Sep 2021 17:06:42 -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; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:06:42 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 13:06:42 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] serve: provide "receive" function for session-id capability Message-ID: References: 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 Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 12:55:01PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:33:09AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > I had originally dropped has_capability() in a separate patch, to keep > > this one more readable. That breaks bisectability, but only with > > -Werror. I'm not sure where we should fall on that spectrum (I generally > > bisect with -Wno-error just because warnings may come and go when > > working with different compilers than what was normal at the time). > > I tend to fall the same way, especially when bisecting things in ancient > (to me) versions of Git where my current compiler complains. So I think > the approach that you took here is just fine. To be clear, the approach here is conservative: it will bisect even with -Werror. I think what you're saying is I _could_ have done the other approach, and put the removal into its own commit? -Peff