On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 08:38:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > In some of the cases, as you've seen, I dug further in cleaning things > > up. But in others I did the minimal fix (especially in this case, the > > limitations are only about the deprecated "branches" and "remotes" > > file), mostly to try to keep the scope of work sane. > > That is sensible. As long as the result of conversion is easier to > audit (which is the primary focus of this series), I'd agree that we > should stop there, instead of making further changes. > > The last thing we would want to do is to change the behaviour, > especially to unintentionally start rejecting what we have always > accepted, while doing a "code clean-up". Letting these sleeping > dogs lie is the safest. That various distros lag behind our release > schedule means that we may not hear about regression until a year > after we break it for a feature used by minority of users.
Yeah, that was my thinking. Since I _did_ end up doing the cleanup and posted it earlier, please feel free to review and express an opinion on the original versus the cleanup. I'm on the fence. I do think the cleaned-up version is much nicer, but I always worry about the risk of touching little-used code. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
