On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 01:33:56AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > Brian, what was your experience when writing these patches? Did they > tend to work as soon as they compiled without errors (i.e., not super > risky) or did you often have test suite failures that you had to go back > and fix (i.e., risky)? If the latter, what kinds of code patterns tended > to be problematic? Your answers might help reviewers decide how much > diligence is needed when reviewing these patches and what kind of > changes to inspect extra carefully. Because doing a thorough review of > all of the patches would be quite a bit of work.
In this particular branch, I think I may have had one bad patch. (I'm trying to recall because I've been working on patches for part 3 in the mean time, and they all seem to group together.) In general, over all my patches, the conversions I've had to fix the most have been the ones to use the GIT_SHA1_* constants, because it's very easy to get off-by-one errors in there or mess up the values such that things break. Extra effort on those, or additional suggestions on how to make them cleaner and less brittle, both now and in the future, would be welcome. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
