From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.153]) (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 0D09119E992 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2025 16:16:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758039376; cv=none; b=vB7Lm/0wUzJjw+HJ0ib+q8nB/C3dy5bS2JIfwluF+PmlqPn0JQmzc3vZTbV7zqGokR12ttnawKZgau7HZH8LvvFV6rUcpUHllB6afy/ZrD5wqh9fu4pbke0SFUfTJNktwkKz2XiAqUELtieVySeE6a9PBUfd3b1Jd/3DMyT9DfI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758039376; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ade6i3Q+sgLGbWMLI0Q0UpEfjmYgMS2Rh+m35ms62wk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=k6ZxNXOAhSWy700VcemVEporJEOfcaoISw5aj2xJYpfUdr/rdszTGLsiGfjz2RbKTJSoDJcaux8E75B0tRF5Ryv9aV03IekfL4ghQkIY9k28LWrRhteQ1S0tEcaaZsh8ikqghnXDhZ2v+DlXUGhAG/8BpT/p4r7i0rst9N4+d7U= 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=VDImQ0Jz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=V7SpWfVk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 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="VDImQ0Jz"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="V7SpWfVk" Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30352140021E; Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:16:13 -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=fm3; t=1758039373; x=1758125773; bh=DrbLqjI2iU N4cBxYubVvEzsm4Tntmn3GI5t4cNHy74g=; b=VDImQ0JzkvvSlvA+LKvC8aiwLc wySYQ34PIdx0iyVq5UKd5uXRRvhqbHnv0vAsrE+97Ex9P8NQuTCxKT8/oQK5k8Ew Gk8uqbZR6PLOKYXimhvrumMbHk7jGfr4pVy8wWZ+jIk7DA3HGA7FknaXt7koKcoZ Kdkh66AySS7df/u4ofzqWblkvmjpmYpMSXk1scXwo4p/+7aEo33+fJHds49J3ixD ep/L55spFPFzUacXs64oY4o/7C72L6De89ZFHurpcMXfcetq3HfMwxHXAwVNfJAT Nenzx4U55b8EgU5NvS3msos5sUikiUS6F6EvcgcHMETPAx3xD4My/0QVMU7Q== 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=fm1; t= 1758039373; x=1758125773; bh=DrbLqjI2iUN4cBxYubVvEzsm4Tntmn3GI5t 4cNHy74g=; b=V7SpWfVkvenEOvk/eKUk+o/5X7scACykgXRuei+6kHV8IeMveEc uL/U/bO9eNugidTMFeg8cfD42vnL91Gb1Dv6s3LvLyDPX8FvRbFMSWtNlLi2k2lB vRFnvTk6qLb3VcGbpQ4lr4kbVo7JU73kfgAiHYLXG8dG0VTVwcGKUzUdN29Ij4yx Zb/6zpGpKpvGPNrSMQ6MDCqh2MMKGc+iw2SdIi8QAWGqm8jscibg2AdRzC6mUPT4 aEJ3/hYBcW1mn6aw+RCz+n5Zk++5rweoFw3RbuESmZ4LEADK5z1t6gvqyOUIZOzL eQ4m6T+egT2/nuvjW5x1yYXd8uQd3Iy5o5Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggdeguddtfecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdfotddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucev ucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeeikeeufefhtedvffdtgeefkefhffeggfefiedvudegfffgffffveevvdeileff udenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgih htshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeefpdhmohguvgepshhm thhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvh hgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohig rdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:16:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2025, #06; Mon, 15) In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Tue, 16 Sep 2025 08:53:08 +0200") References: Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:16:11 -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: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:19:45PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> * ps/odb-clean-stale-wrappers (2025-09-12) 2 commits >> - fixup! odb: drop deprecated wrapper functions >> - odb: drop deprecated wrapper functions >> >> Code clean-up. >> >> Breaks build when merged to 'seen'. >> cf. <20250910153759.GA562601@coredump.intra.peff.net> >> source: <20250910-b4-pks-odb-drop-wrappers-v1-1-6ed660cb1eec@pks.im> > > Shall I send a new revision of this patch series that squashes in the > fixup commit? I wouldn't mind doing that, but it becomes a bit weird to > do so when the original base of the patch doesn't even the issue. Yeah, typicall fallouts from code churn that needs to be handled somewhere in the codebase. *hit happens (shrug). As this makes it necessary for that file to eventually include an extra header, it sort of makes sense. I am more wondering if it should be a separate commit (i.e. give it a proper log message instead of fixup!). If we were to squash, we would need to mention why a seemingly unnecessary change is included. "In anticipation of another topic that adds a call to function Y, whose definition this topic shuffles around and makes it necessary for its callers to include header X, we pre-emptively include header X that will become needed for the other topic to use function Y when merged with this topic". I agree that is certainly awkward. Adding the extra include to the other topic is not any cleaner. It didn't have to include that header to make calls to some functions, and it is only because another topic shuffled things around that made it necessary. "In anticipation of another topic shuffling headers around, we pre-emptively include header X that will become needed to use function Y when merged with the other topic" would be such an extra commit would say. That may be slightly less awkward but it still is so. And it would be cumbersome to do _the_ right thing for something so small like this: build this on top of the topics affected. That would allow us to say something like "We will move things around and require header X to be included by callers of function Y in a later commit in this series. Do so now as a preliminary step." So I dunno. What's your preference?