Re: cleanups with long-term benefits

From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: "Eduardo Habkost" <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
	qemu-block@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@redhat.com>,
	"Jason Wang" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	"Juan Quintela" <quintela@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Yuval Shaia" <yuval.shaia.ml@gmail.com>,
	"Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com>,
	"Andrea Bolognani" <abologna@redhat.com>,
	"Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>,
	"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"John Snow" <jsnow@redhat.com>,
	"Michael Roth" <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
	"Stefan Berger" <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: cleanups with long-term benefits
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 11:08:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200805100802.GG4127670@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200805111155.25abfd26.cohuck@redhat.com>

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:11:55AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:05:40 +0100
> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 10:49:35AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 05/08/20 10:39, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:  
> > > >> Do you really use "git blame" that much?  "git log -S" does more or less
> > > >> the same function (in a different way) and is not affected as much by
> > > >> large code movement and transformation patches.  
> > > >
> > > > I use it a lot!   Following stuff back to find where a change came
> > > > from and then asking people.  
> > > 
> > > Indeed, but I use "git log -S" instead. :)  Another possibility is to
> > > just do "git log -p" and search for a relevant line of the code I'm
> > > "blaming".  
> > 
> > I used git blame alot too, but I don't think its a reason to not do the
> > cleanups. It is easy enough to just tell blame to use an earlier commit
> > if you see it displaying a refactor. I don't think such mild inconvenience
> > should stop us making otherwise desirable code changes
> 
> I don't think people argue that it should block changes; it it simply
> another thing to consider when weighing benefits vs. drawbacks.

Actually, I'm saying that including "git blame" in such a weighing is
the mechanism for blocking otherwise beneficial change to the code. Or
to put it another way, I believe the value assigned to "git blame" in
such a comparison is miniscule / effectively zero. The only time
"git blame" should win is if the change in question is purely the
bike shed colour and has no technical benefits at all.  If there's any
technical benefit to making the change it should always win.  We
shouldn't preserve technical debt in the code merely to avoid an impact
on "git blame".

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|