From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB331F424 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:00:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751457AbeDUHAY (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2018 03:00:24 -0400 Received: from mail-pl0-f65.google.com ([209.85.160.65]:41545 "EHLO mail-pl0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750931AbeDUHAY (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2018 03:00:24 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-f65.google.com with SMTP id bj1-v6so6417599plb.8 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 00:00:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rV9Yo+BVnxobI9x1sEQrgrYKntHtbJScm5eSBxMoGeg=; b=gV/hJazDgAkJfMMhb0ocv6NXikFT5Q+HRiQAhvN3CscjetK9neSdzsCzQ9p2EJ1lcl kWBNKhZT+xFpT+HwM14PsdgnFx7o1DL/yE6R76TK5qMJrgegeNNn8oC/jF2MgKCuIQkD L3yAhrCWUgj0q9C5wW7qnMPWVRJJdZdLDoncOrC1cNq1OXcvHYju3GW1BVNdaojj8vrw 32VVyOsx7KeroR5td6gg4rGtI0fY9ItTjaNkrKs1VFQwGUdhpTEYUqr6ks78vzgQmnl0 rQbsX4RZr5nH8qRcJX38As/qrSuY2nokpOtpGKlnHVxkbynT28NpoKzOPdcG4m0QexLu pdzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rV9Yo+BVnxobI9x1sEQrgrYKntHtbJScm5eSBxMoGeg=; b=CXbe5Y0+M+eQOSkbHPt1uhUQSpjsU0mJNo2ovaRvOizGgID+q0U4W4FmUceTkNazdp /QsChN/OQhHjaEuFv/rFiNQ0gOD1acr6LmWJsu9IWI4f99GRBG0zlEXV/NHThfpkvzSJ KtAoU0IE24rI20wV9SPZ3rcNwIrdNJNIsAlIbWo6a4e5/NK+3tbd6H7koDjJEbfjv7x1 HjMfN8xYQRZmjRVCjgVwV+FX8obHKTFmStDcuIIZQDSoAu8EBxopkAGAQACpu2gVe7fm YRlAn7Apr+Kmr+wu5e+I7mAWvf3749LZn3Lsp/oBjQjcEmXAqAVmXLsMop9clsTu+qMD R5FA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tB0KbeCE8fmQM4vZLvaemvlSSflsIwfgU/YvjhyAvmx4FLrtpyR +35r/8Bxpo7bcv0BZCEhAclNlbXftUje+/sQ1bY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49Z1BoPPnpabqU7N6han9ESTXfoeymatm6FZkGFosGJpIK+Zvv3Wmme9a20FmM5oaWC+P/ROdqOV11s+72NinM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:1c7:: with SMTP id b65-v6mr10631556plb.298.1524294023753; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 00:00:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.150.4 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 00:00:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20180420221231.4131611-1-martin.agren@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_=C3=85gren?= Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 09:00:23 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fast-export: fix regression skipping some merge-commits To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git Mailing List , Johannes Schindelin , Isaac Chou , Jonathan Tan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 21 April 2018 at 05:43, Junio C Hamano wrote: > but I do not think the updated "fix" below is better. It might be > just aesthetics and I suspect I won't find it as disturbing if we > could push with > > object_array_push(commits, (struct object *)commit); > > or something that is more clearly symmetric to object_array_pop(). > The "Queue again" comment is needed only because use of "add" > highlights the lack of symmetry. > > With add_object_array(), it looks somewhat more odd than your > previous > > peek it to check; > if (it should not be molested) > return; > pop to mark it consumed; > consume it; > > sequence, in which peek() and pop() were more obviously related > operations on the same "array" object. > > And I do not think it is a good idea to introduce _push() only for > symmetry (it would merely be a less capable version of add whose > name is spelled differently). Hence my preference for peek-check-pop > over pop-oops-push-again-but-push-spelled-as-add. > > Not worth a reroll, though. I just wanted to spread better design > sense to contributors ;-) Thanks for your wise words. :-) One thing that just occurred to me is that if the original site where we `add_object_array()` all objects starts adding a non-NULL `name` for some reason, then we need to remember to do the same with this new caller. I suspect that at that time, at the latest, we will be switching to peek-check-pop. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Martin