On 4/8/2018 7:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
If I were doing it myself, I probably would have folded patches 1 and 3
together. They are touching all the same spots, and it would be an error
for any case converted in patch 1 to not get converted in patch 3. I'm
assuming you caught them all due to Coccinelle, though IMHO it is
somewhat overkill here. By folding them together the compiler could tell
you which spots you missed.
Yeah, that approach would probably be a more sensible way to assure
the safety/correctness of the result to readers better.
I don't understand how folding the patches makes the correctness
clearer, since the rename (1/4) is checked by the compiler and the
Coccinelle script (3/4) only works after that rename is complete.
The only thing I can imagine is that it makes smaller patch emails,
since there is only one large patch instead of two. In this case, I
prefer to make changes that are easier to check by automation (compiler
and coccinelle).
However, I will defer to the experts in this regard. If a v3 is
necessary, then I will fold the commits together.
Thanks,
-Stolee
