From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.152]) (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 D932B189BB0 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 15:29:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.152 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760110178; cv=none; b=JlhXWP48i6jPb8mfNT5hjKuyZL8dNfQ6GCQUj2jkgW4pi0KE1PW1x9n/94Fhw/65T0O/xxW1Thfu7w4qDy3ZMM3uYt9AKa+/GojHmQIX03P0iCEtchyjkr6L1HO7sf0iprvDAsEJNDHR9ZA0wC7OQWsQYpFyxK1Kq13htdw/LQM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760110178; c=relaxed/simple; bh=H9MGhyXagZUxf/1Cya7Xg1TwxFtKSoAKr7EE1hAitTk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CIjSdkdMUT7sC2Z9z9nFyvJTDsC8ZX/QTCglMsmKoM4kd124ZrRdz4I7trEq0IxQ3BTMe2cJrPbplkM+DwK3s0PpcSWZdqhGp88YXTnpqZeNTtmzntyIVF4h3YdUXTRN86NH3zTLCZmLR4US4aNsYfYnfq/fLMPwrONf0Cktdzo= 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=dnEfa951; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=VrIIQvLE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.152 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="dnEfa951"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="VrIIQvLE" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56711400111; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 11:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 10 Oct 2025 11:29:34 -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=1760110174; x=1760196574; bh=hLLAvIhtCF 4GxBr8rc4I060tyWmRKOy1Pw3n4y6sDxg=; b=dnEfa951rUOaAVt5GJUJphkJXp qgg3IRiSss34liRvRlO04P+CCTumjBOJpM3LMNG2hszRCWxfRi3DqGV4t7jTvXWa p/sqUkbPtYFmpO6koqvQisTJKDGWYjqmZbaOsBiJRn/v17Ej8ptOMO2nJwvOGC0o SBuufufPwOV5xlum6ilY2Fi39hGDLv0vN8cDVo0cQawGXZ3Th02b1nMkRFuFPh/Q mSfcdt81gwtlF17fHgHJx+4QP6JfNp2PhXT9HOBTpfkhOqirBin9xK0a1pj6elFt V4lopKq9nq0HZj8Kg4kr4dbUkrMRISlSuxXCnSqIVG/qW72qPCkXVot6d/uA== 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= 1760110174; x=1760196574; bh=hLLAvIhtCF4GxBr8rc4I060tyWmRKOy1Pw3 n4y6sDxg=; b=VrIIQvLEfOZHIPkygc1Mr/bySDP7bu/6bBIYloEWiFomwzn04d/ H1a88HsDkBhpCMHifU6BY/l304AnQNpGXzuVJ89zFJZCu98kR2FyNYxBbCZ5t8I8 oPA2EBJ+J2r0opEywFt3UBJKME+tP5AkZYq/ZTiE9Tibk4Z5NBdIdg3ijNHkMzZT u7sdJ7/qhK8jpkgcs735/u8Y24KIkcaagyWNB5LNzp/Y6ytlhrdut3+lOL82BjTg AXyTYO35Rbql0RtBCe2HrY/H+6TexQoEtvnxdHIRusoTenY3CSXE7oj2lYQHgF4S o+EU1BRsY+hJ45SwkVumsE5b3KFTg1UFo5A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddutdelgedvucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepkedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehpvghffh esphgvfhhfrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhr ghdprhgtphhtthhopehkrhhishhtohhffhgvrhhhrghughhssggrkhhksehfrghsthhmrg hilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehkrghrthhhihhkrddukeeksehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhm pdhrtghpthhtohepmhgvsehtthgrhihlohhrrhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehjlhhtoh gslhgvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohig rdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 11:29:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Jeff King , 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: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Fri, 10 Oct 2025 07:22:28 +0200") 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> <20251009063956.GA1622884@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20251010051242.GC1897715@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:29:32 -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 Patrick Steinhardt writes: > So to move forward, how about we land this as-is and I promise to follow > up with another series that: > > - Renames `struct ref` as proposed. > > - Introduces `struct reference` into more of our APIs? Sorry, but I am not quite sure why we would want to do so. Does "struct reference" sufficiently cover the things we want to do with references and "struct ref" is not sufficient for that? Comparing what 'struct ref' caters to its users and what 'struct reference' offers to its users and declaring that one set of needs is more generic to the 'reference API' than the other set risks getting blinded by the area we happened to have been focusing on recently. Apparently, the above proposal is not claiming that what one wants to do is a subset of what the other wants to do (if so, you'd rather not be introducing a new "struct reference" but extending "struct ref" to be usable for more things). Or would we add more to it than what we see in this series, such that it would no longer be "a subset" of needs various code paths would have around the reference API? If so, is the longer-term plan to have callers that use "struct ref" to eventually use "struct reference"? If not, they are serving different subset of the problem space, and they will continue to do so. In that case, why wouldn't we rename "struct reference" to something that is more focused on what it is for? In the context of this topic, would that be "reference found during iteration" or something?