From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC39BC433DB for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:40:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5010664F3E for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:40:14 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5010664F3E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:35882 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7aBR-00022a-48 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 03:40:13 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60624) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7a9U-0000iu-4f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 03:38:12 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:28994) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7a9O-0005fx-Ca for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 03:38:11 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1612427882; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JnrOoKXQgrzcUvp2lxbO9WoBSjwwEbq7mZSdWjGeToM=; b=KkeYiQdwNbP01TW8mtA0xfaGYFJ0+GiQ6HAzU7X1SdwdSgR6aTT/g9i86fM6zCn43hmmbz YAgYpsZ0z8kB34u1pA3CXHkgu7HgtR+8s0cQoQuPixs9/952md27lFmtet99eXXzA42xy1 FX7DRHdJdwrc47YNcEF/btmHPLKB3xI= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-599-G-Mk2pKuN7y29l1fm7eLiw-1; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 03:37:24 -0500 X-MC-Unique: G-Mk2pKuN7y29l1fm7eLiw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58FCD107ACE4; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:37:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-115-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.115.51]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27CFB71C9B; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:37:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A7F26113865F; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 09:37:21 +0100 (CET) From: Markus Armbruster To: John Snow Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/14] qapi/introspect.py: replace 'extra' dict with 'comment' argument References: <20210202174651.2274166-1-jsnow@redhat.com> <20210202174651.2274166-7-jsnow@redhat.com> <87tuqtteks.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 09:37:21 +0100 In-Reply-To: (John Snow's message of "Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:21:38 -0500") Message-ID: <87lfc4kz3y.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=armbru@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -32 X-Spam_score: -3.3 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.539, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Michael Roth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost , Cleber Rosa Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" John Snow writes: > On 2/3/21 9:23 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> John Snow writes: >> >>> This is only used to pass in a dictionary with a comment already set, so >>> skip the runaround and just accept the comment. >>> >>> This works because _tree_to_qlit() treats 'if': None; 'comment': None >>> exactly like absent 'if'; 'comment'. >> Confusing, because the two paragraphs talk about two different >> things: >> 1. Actual arguments for @extra are either None or {'comment': >> comment}. >> Simplify: replace parameter @extra by parameter @comment. >> 2. Dumb down the return value to always be of the form >> (obj {'if': ifcond, 'comment': comment}) >> > > I think you are drawing attention to the fact that 'if' and 'comment' > are now always present in this dict instead of conditionally present. Correct. > (else, I have misread you. (I think you are missing a comma.)) I am! I meant to write (obj, {'if': ifcond, 'comment': comment}) >> I suspect splitting the patch is easier than crafting a clear commit >> message for the combined one. >> > > I wouldn't have considered to break out such a small change into two > even smaller changes, but as you are in charge here ... Okey Dokey. > > (meta-tangent: [1]) [...] > [1] As a matter of process, I sometimes find it cumbersome to > intentionally engineer an intermediary state when I jumped straight > from A->C in my actual editing. Yes, the extra work can be cumbersome. But then writing a neat commit message for a commit that does two things can also be cumbersome. "Split and write two straightforward commit messages" has proven easier for me many times. > I will usually keep such intermediary forms when they come about > naturally in the course of development, but rarely seek to add them > artificially -- it feels like a major bummer to engineer, test, and > scrutinize code that's only bound to be deleted immediately after. > Sometimes, it feels like a waste of reviewer effort, too. It depends. Sometimes "don't split and write a complicated commit message" is easier. Which way you get to "commit message(s) don't confuse Markus" in this particular case is up to you :) > It's been years and I still don't think I have any real intuitive > sense for this, which is ...unfortunate. It's been years, and my intuition still evolves.