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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 213D9C83000 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD98220737 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:22:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Hi1/hnO1" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726510AbgD1XWQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 19:22:16 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51648 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726181AbgD1XWQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 19:22:16 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520B04E575; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 19:22:14 -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; s=sasl; bh=iTTPY/+LZ1hAHKvlLebvFwIIPzY=; b=Hi1/hn O1DAlxE63iVwviLwe/NWs9x4YOHIsDXOGffsdAhlfhx0DFbPSsg4YELloPxYsMxL z8tZofcLI4uUpjEbtiu1wbzt2ktVSqGZUfdIiafbbJ0Sc4mAiAVu0GGBEMmn4sd9 Ja2Lf2mWzk3RLtues4mJE016A/XpWyewIDelY= 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; q=dns; s=sasl; b=g1eQiTourV6zUQoUd0+o+h8qdJ1OAsDP ElziS92FE/C41HxgrSkvPArIosfXKdsWSlZvWDHF96bTedu+7qvx3SzvjEwkVq3D ksEPnhTz2Ee/0fkhX5vX8Dq4xMmASslnaQPyxH8jjcRphqLWHkHxXe0L5ytqNAHF zXSnR/JuFF0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4927B4E573; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 19:22:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC0C24E572; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 19:22:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com, mhagger@alum.mit.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] commit-graph.c: write non-split graphs as read-only References: <86cf29ce9c1e6dc1fc881458c18850c2893b092a.1588004647.git.me@ttaylorr.com> <20200427235935.GA14984@syl.local> <20200428033438.GA2369457@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200428205913.GC4000@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200428210821.GF4000@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200428214413.GA47690@syl.local> <20200428215815.GA8526@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:22:13 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200428215815.GA8526@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:58:15 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 17B531D0-89A7-11EA-AD80-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:44:13PM -0600, Taylor Blau wrote: > >> What do you want to do about the final patch that I stuck on the end of >> this series in [1]? If I don't hear from anybody, I'll send it as 5/5 in >> v3 and we can feel free to not apply it if it's controversial. > > I have to admit I don't care that much either way about it (see my > earlier response on three mental models). I'm happy for you or Junio to > decide. :) My gut feeling is that our longer term goal (if we had timeperiod during which the codebase is quiescent enough and infinite energy to dedicate on code clean-up) among one or your options should be to consistently create files that are rewritten-and-renamed read-only, to discourage casual tampering, so I am OK with that 5th patch. Having said that, I suspect that Derrick and friends are larger stakeholders in the "chain" file, so I'd prefer to see us basing the choice on their input. Thanks.