On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 15:15:43 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:
----- On Aug 5, 2021, at 2:56 PM, rostedt rostedt@goodmis.org wrote:
Note, there shouldn't be a "(v2)" outside the "[PATCH ]" part. Otherwise it gets added into the git commit during "git am".
Out of curiosity, do you know any way to annotate my local commits to have the [PATCH v2] tag automatically generated by git send-email ?
I pass -v2 to git send-email, and it adds the v2 for me.
This is a big enough regression, I'll even add a Fixes tag to the next patch on the final sha1 of this patch! Such that this patch won't be backported without the next patch.
This makes sense. I still wanted to keep the two patches separate so we would introduce the (slow) state machine in the first patch, and optimize for speed in the second. My intent is to facilitate of small logical changes, and make bisection more precise in the future if we introduce an issue here.
I agree which is why I didn't ask you to fold them. The logic in this code was a big enough change, where I agree it should be kept separate. Unfortunately, it caused a huge performance regression :-(, but at the same time, fixed a correctness issue, which Thomas always says that correctness trumps performance.
But the compromise is to add a Fixes tag to the next patch and document why they are separated, but still required to act as "one". I'll add that commentary.
-- Steve
Calling out more clearly how slow things become with this patch is indeed important.