Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: >> - existing users of for_each_replace_ref() who were all happy >> working in the_repository have to pass it explicitly, even >> thought they do not have any need to. > > All callbacks that are passed to for_each_replace_ref now > operate on 'r' instead of the_repository, and that actually fixes > a bug (commit message is lacking), but the cover letter hints at: > ... >> In this case, even if you introduced for_each_replace_ref_in_repo(), >> making for_each_replace_ref() a thin wrapper that always uses >> the_repository is a bit more cumbersome than just a simple macro. > > Yes, but such a callback would do the *wrong* subtle thing in some cases > as you really want to work in the correct repository for e.g. looking up > commits. > >> But it *is* doable (you'd need to use a wrapping structure around >> cb_data), and a developer who case about maintainability during API >> transition would have taken pains to do so. A bit dissapointing. > > My original patches were RFC-ish and a trade off as for the reflog only > there is nothing in flight to care about. > > Given that we would want to upgrade all the ref callbacks, we have to > take this route, I think.
Try to rebuild 'pu' on top of 'master' yoruself to realize how many in-flight topics you are hurting and causing unnecessary load on the maintainer with the "let's add the 'r' parameter without changing the function names; compiler would catch and cause breakages" approach. Until that happens, I won't waste any more time trying to educate you on this further.
