From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (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 89A7D13A26F for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:07:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708027633; cv=none; b=jFRUl8cnO1DWBYTx8iJjN/v0l/JCiCndwhJ3VCWejWzlhFRlpTy4UDohYhRd+0zywVqv1soojnK3aSTvBropYdF3vRPVPOyUTJTgtpJNq4X4aPXJmDpFuFh75g1h7PwWI9oKJXLmrvDjnv1qNsruycjcCR+DXMhyTMSJSYPnIh8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708027633; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lmgIN5KAuAlZYGJ/wbRi6sYpHmdqDdjDhYie+3IXzK8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pNtEE5PAJUT2/N+hoCRxcxEHAOacZF4Lu84lHSxOLWZUtcWUHE7cSGtz6knmxXXtdAnO6UUP0m0SQBve009n+IvXndkG4TNQXYvFyb0MOYGgSRRXwUu8nNMTLazJR3ccnfTwc6LidM1sReiIcQ9UWNzmg3WOg2uhtjdqHEHKuRg= 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=EyR4WSTL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="EyR4WSTL" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9C329410; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:07:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=lmgIN5KAuAlZYGJ/wbRi6sYpHmdqDdjDhYie+3 IXzK8=; b=EyR4WSTLcBCvJQbMQ2UcLg1OMAsSDQ0h6PxAjC26GiBixnFA1DN5+P xjKWA43C6Qmelk4MnMkfBZF/GIuOB+Y4qQGrHHOQxrUicp4dCc599VluNic08hxJ 9xJcw751kldepXK0uXrWFc8rOCSUakYXlhOK4ayASQZO4Z5w40NlY= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425012940F; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:07:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.165.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFFC42940D; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:07:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elia Pinto Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] use C99 declaration of variable in for() loop In-Reply-To: (Elia Pinto's message of "Thu, 15 Feb 2024 19:56:40 +0100") References: <20240215094243.147057-1-gitter.spiros@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:07:01 -0800 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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C8C7CE4C-CC3D-11EE-93C9-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Elia Pinto writes: > Thank you for your reply. I can understand that, clearly. However, > this means that extensive code > refactoring contributions are never welcome. I am not saying this is a > problem, but just an observation. Such changes can happen and have happened when the benefit of such code churn outweighs the cost of reviewing *and* cost of updating or adjusting in-flight topics that may already or may not yet be in my tree. Coccinelle-driven patches that can be mechanically reproduced and whose validity can be trusted can be one way to reduce the review and maintenance cost for such a tree-wide change.