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=-4.4 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 116DE20373 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 23:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754181AbdCMXbk (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:31:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:51928 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751486AbdCMXbj (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:31:39 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83DC5849B1; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:31:37 -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=ow1eBuY16thGuzjHW/IZDX8BSiU=; b=SQIOfN FOkciEoB/ZVu6NGUs/+e6KIv6Qk6k1Ff3YjCaiHvVRjZFRViSgGZSxxCikJNWnqg 9287pl7ghWrsoqMReL8WvU+5Js9b1n5sxf2YgpTO9UpUGp71jPgiVCH+HyJn58pF 4vF7PoInL2q62Z0TwdxHUWmYThY2p5gzcuaMo= 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=uAf5NVr5/Xwo5OTYqhCKy6qk/7wT7kXp e8+n7EhUIMMLtLnbyUbpElouSfgQI7T5M36AZzYrlQj6eOFUvQ5n6e/+r2pS9ZDT GVR98yfTsMr1XW+/X2qD6tDO/OOzLwHKuCZ5JOlwG/bYWnSF/BYD4bhc4diFqMen Vt4opI9VQY8= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0DD849B0; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:31:37 -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-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA464849AF; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:31:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Duy Nguyen , Brandon Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/11] setup_git_directory_gently_1(): avoid die()ing References: Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:31:35 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:46:27 +0100 (CET)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3388345C-0845-11E7-8631-FC50AE2156B6-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> When a patch series is refactoring an existing function to be used >> in different codepaths, an existing issue inherited from the >> original code (e.g. perhaps an existing error checking that is >> looser than ideal) may have been OK in the original context (e.g. >> perhaps it died and refused to run until the user corrected the >> repository), and it still is OK in the codepath that uses the >> refactored building blocks to replace the original code, but it may >> not be acceptable to leave the issue in the original code when a new >> caller calls the refactored building block (e.g. perhaps the >> refactoring made it possible for a caller to ask the function not to >> die and instead act on different kinds of errors in different ways). > > In this case, ... It becomes somewhat irritating when you get combative and defensive unnecessarily. We already established this case is OK two messages ago, I think. The above is only to make sure that people cannot take the "issues in the original is OK to leave outside the scope of a new series" in my message out of context and treat it as a general rule to justify their sloppy patches in the future. We need to see if issues inherited from the original is necessary to fix before refactoring even begins on case-by-case basis, seeing what the requirement of the new code that uses the refactored code. And the case-by-case thing we already did for _this_ case.