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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 8E103C433DF for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6847C20772 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="IvJ8ouhI" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727097AbgHQWx3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:53:29 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:62804 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726903AbgHQWx2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:53:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B5FDCE25; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:53:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=SrmZ5qoNJ580 frJSI1ll0Gb1VdQ=; b=IvJ8ouhI8HQY3jSdlRf/MMpyPlT0GVFvXoKiEsKh7/kY trXRUWyv1j9eWvurzIqhgnGBilovtdTMMXNmrKikC2aTTa4ompFyKz6Pe/l0qEi/ 5hAiO4eYbq1PshLBA/zTeWSidbP2/ynRT93pELZCytsy3ljqb4tcFTiPrBxz9wE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=qGu2g1 S3cf5lwuDWzwiMbeCLVrsZcJ84Z1FtemsZokRg5/WrjGSQtjsEbSpvxHy3lePbYa N5AOYCso/S955ECuGkUquZbTI5C/YKKvTt7S8JrPFzoktOHKSMsWFvCCWBUCjVIy DuYi7c8rMmPso43mx8lNgc6gY4bZluqUvBHBc= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF3DDCE23; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:53:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BCAFDCE22; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:53:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe , Taylor Blau , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] fast-export: factor out print_oid() References: <1eb633f5-31ec-5d8d-69ac-35d0fb9772da@web.de> <20200813151856.GE2244@syl.lan> <3ddf0a14-77ac-7546-e03a-704432305bdb@web.de> <20200813172545.GB1597339@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200817220843.GA1858228@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:53:21 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200817220843.GA1858228@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:08:43 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 743D9F78-E0DC-11EA-BAEF-F0EA2EB3C613-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 09:14:49AM +0200, Ren=C3=A9 Scharfe wrote: > >> > I think this is a bad direction unless you're going to do it for all= of >> > the other anonymize_*() functions, as well, for consistency. And the= re >> > it gets tricky because the caller is able to use the anonymizing >> > knowledge in more places. >> > >> > I actually liked your original version better. >>=20 >> OK, how about embracing the static and do something like this? >>=20 >> -- >8 -- >> Subject: [PATCH] fast-export: add format_oid() and format_path() > > TBH, I don't find it an improvement because of the extra buffer > handling. But I admit that I don't really care between any of the > solutions posted here. They all appear to be correct, and just trading > off various properties so that none is definitively better than the > other. (And none of them is so bad that I feel compelled to avoid it). > > So I'd be OK with any of them (or leaving it as-is). > > -Peff I've marked it as "retracted" per https://lore.kernel.org/git/6e2d4472-8293-4f10-0ba6-82ae83f7a465@web.de/ Thanks.