From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 448211B423B for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 19:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.150 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760038654; cv=none; b=rLzaaSxudQzPSh4L8Eg2m/tzd377R4Ag/LRyAylhUAlRoZFpR82BjSLCGYpN9qRDHw+WPmx2sT70+7yXikRUVr9CcMNIOYYyFB+9Ro1WwbVR8tXWJ+GRDAUMitBF4r48ADurVZS4goHcdpm9sgYHV182/aNpus8Dz4G+IEufHzU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760038654; c=relaxed/simple; bh=S0adhpMwbpBhQKPkEgHOrYsWMsPaMhwZoh0wgBGvbYM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=k14/YgR/5A+BZF2FK8IJSWjS0robOn1Bm3V/6FPUkP7T66Ia3zyWji8rkK1eAkUhxXu1Dtb/vFEsBx9p+gnms3q9RVVMToWol8tYAezwvhsrwAYHWEeCG1WQSCsiQ4ZK3PvXJxOrKsjeLHmyCnadVNYhrTayDEoI9DS9vwRKvbo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Ltc+Hjer; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=rgvCBa/r; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.150 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Ltc+Hjer"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="rgvCBa/r" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C538EC00DD; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 15:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 Oct 2025 15:37:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1760038651; x=1760125051; bh=yB5wZN17rL IYGOXMndqItq9fPVmnb/h/5wHoam5uUE0=; b=Ltc+HjerVlKw99p1tEnVYv2CHE sC+LjCVktZsDwfFwB9neI5KiaInTHIUYLetDxay621aa7uTPtiC1zEAtazYDkh1b yAD0qjJm3QD9e3szmEMYbrWX+o8ENGJh8qK/FBShNrfyy1gjdxGH7i3kO2sida1W 623OeCvmnJDKj081fVDfUaIRQnhYQnD/auMOtj+EB6uuxGJmD5Wk7Ql3jjwRDJb9 KqUfU83dSVzeBp5WlyhcvbZ4O2CjF3E4VbHzi94w9E9ICyzAINBP/39cCL/+6Ag8 EBji5NyT54GtztR2Hah7LjKeQZ1pXJJucxrtbSVoIAh2t1TpYN3bbpB2cYkQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1760038651; x=1760125051; bh=yB5wZN17rLIYGOXMndqItq9fPVmnb/h/5wH oam5uUE0=; b=rgvCBa/r9U6p3RuOMrVMZw0o+m6LoTR7rAV1AO6IEgSltv+LADf gA9oAnqW8EqF1rN8b0foLsOlqCjJHiTpG8kDTCEJxv1DGgcU6BisQ8IujgowLhyv 728QDkSUveoilJGgx0APGCh7h882e9YgIe7T0YXmQysHYGbVTHw8B9gYOl27+JOF 2/ciH7Vw+27mWQF951mO/fXdY5I+DoPV0tDIgNooIOWLqns6hCTKI5A9VZhvyXuq LsBMLvSLClQZVZv06NmRthx56RCQJCHhjeDrlqGbwmMMbYVZJAZxbp4D9IqbZrCh 2aoFAmWUg/WZ25nqy5Qc4vhwaEix/119iwg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddutdejtdefucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepkedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphgvfhhfsehpvghffhdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhope hpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhr ghdprhgtphhtthhopehkrhhishhtohhffhgvrhhhrghughhssggrkhhksehfrghsthhmrg hilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehkrghrthhhihhkrddukeeksehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhm pdhrtghpthhtohepmhgvsehtthgrhihlohhrrhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehjlhhtoh gslhgvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohig rdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 15:37:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Patrick Steinhardt , git@vger.kernel.org, Kristoffer Haugsbakk , Karthik Nayak , Taylor Blau , Justin Tobler Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] refs: improvements and fixes for peeling tags In-Reply-To: <20251009053825.GB1614343@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 9 Oct 2025 01:38:25 -0400") References: <20251007-b4-pks-ref-filter-skip-parsing-objects-v1-0-916cc7c6886b@pks.im> <20251008-b4-pks-ref-filter-skip-parsing-objects-v2-0-76e30d5c9542@pks.im> <20251009053825.GB1614343@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 12:37:29 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 05:50:15PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> - Patches 1 to 8 refactor our codebase so that we don't have the >> `peel_iterated_object()` hack anymore. I just found it hard to >> follow and thought it shouldn't be too hard to get rid of it. > > I'm really happy to see this hack go away. I've wanted to fix it for > ages, but didn't want to bite the bullet on changing all of the > each_ref_fn callbacks. The approach you used here to pass through a > struct looks good to me. > > I do have one minor complaint, though: the name of that struct. I have a > feeling that the name "struct reference" may cause confusion down the > road because it's so generic, and because "references" and "refs" are so > common in the code. From the names, when would I know when to use > "struct reference" and when "struct ref"? > > Could we give it a name that ties it to the iteration interface? > Something like iterated_ref, each_ref_data, etc? > > I know this is minor (and will be annoying to adjust your series), but > I'd rather raise the point now than realize later that it's confusing > and try to change it then. Thanks for saving me from saying the above ;-) My feeling exactly, both on the happiness of finally see the hack go, and also the naming.