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=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 EFB8720988 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:56:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S938148AbcJRP4p (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:56:45 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:65484 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935562AbcJRP4n (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:56:43 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D4F476C0; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:56:42 -0400 (EDT) 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=+ANh2l6Gi17+QyW20pi6AmT1Vic=; b=whUx5G XKSnV1XLhcbsFZE6L9LfAiAMyM6u1+I6FjzkZN9pyHqeyWo+EaGl+rd6jYpjKdsM agYZxG4C04t5CFE4cs0TIrV8XjA1PnE5016ePreoFuBDBvHfnYgLb11cw3OsVvrn xrQgT/rQBvPg4vztVjxMYWGzMMCOlx7YlXVTU= 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=jHGJkj13frbMzbDClxcPw9GD8OWA72Zy slw4mOBJxEOuHYHtD8Zphh2ndNoAYFpdie/gaG9etJkBsk/u/EJWG1tMBd8stHgS 3mdLQg2ZhgCUTIL8wSoX+MbR/3MvFJMemojE8ngBByjbXRrBcor1K7ycLdb8lFdD IXpX8Gz51FI= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C51476BE; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E249476BD; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:56:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= , Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 16/25] sequencer: support amending commits References: Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:56:39 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:53:10 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 75DED1C0-954B-11E6-948E-987C12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> > This teaches the run_git_commit() function to take an argument that will >> > allow us to implement "todo" commands that need to amend the commit >> > messages ("fixup", "squash" and "reword"). >> >> Likewise to 15/25, i.e. Good, though the growth by these two steps >> starts to make me wonder if these three options should be crammed >> into an unsigned "flags" bitword. > > After looking at the diff with the added complications of ORing and ANDing > the flags, I'd much rather prefer to stay with the three flags being kept > separately. It's not like we need to save bits, but we need to preserve > readability as much as possible, I'd wager. That's OK. I just wanted to make sure pros-and-cons have been already considered. The primary merit of using flags bitword is not to save bits; it is done to limit the damage to the codebase when we need to add yet another knob, by the way.