On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Оля Тележная <olyatelezhn...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2018-01-18 2:04 GMT+03:00 Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com>: >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:22:23AM +0300, Оля Тележная wrote: >>> >>>> >> In other words, I think the endgame is that expand_atom() isn't there at >>>> >> all, and we're calling the equivalent of format_ref_item() for each >>>> >> object (except that in a unified formatting world, it probably doesn't >>>> >> have the word "ref" in it, since that's just one of the items a caller >>>> >> might pass in). >>>> >>>> Agree! I want to merge current edits, then create format.h file and >>>> make some renames, then finish migrating process to new format.h and >>>> support all new meaningful tags. >>> >>> I think we have a little bit of chicken and egg there, though. I'm >>> having trouble reviewing the current work, because it's hard to evaluate >>> whether it's doing the right thing without seeing the end state. >> >> Yeah, to me it feels like you are at a middle point and there are many >> ways to go forward. > > OK. Maybe I misunderstood you and Jeff in our call, I thought that was > your idea to make a merge now, sorry. I will continue my work here.
If you think you can now prepare a patch series that looks like it is going in the right direction, then yes you can do that. But after looking at the current patch series I agree with Peff that, as it doesn't look finished, it's difficult to tell if all the steps are good. In general it is a good idea to try to merge things as soon possible, but for that to be possible the state of the code that we want to be merged should look quite stable, and it doesn't look very stable to me.
