Re: cleanups with long-term benefits

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 06:23:23PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 05.08.2020 um 12:08 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:11:55AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:05:40 +0100
> > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 10:49:35AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > > On 05/08/20 10:39, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:  
> > > > > >> Do you really use "git blame" that much?  "git log -S" does more 
> > > > > >> or less
> > > > > >> the same function (in a different way) and is not affected as much 
> > > > > >> by
> > > > > >> large code movement and transformation patches.  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I use it a lot!   Following stuff back to find where a change came
> > > > > > from and then asking people.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Indeed, but I use "git log -S" instead. :)  Another possibility is to
> > > > > just do "git log -p" and search for a relevant line of the code I'm
> > > > > "blaming".  
> > > > 
> > > > I used git blame alot too, but I don't think its a reason to not do the
> > > > cleanups. It is easy enough to just tell blame to use an earlier commit
> > > > if you see it displaying a refactor. I don't think such mild 
> > > > inconvenience
> > > > should stop us making otherwise desirable code changes
> > > 
> > > I don't think people argue that it should block changes; it it simply
> > > another thing to consider when weighing benefits vs. drawbacks.
> > 
> > Actually, I'm saying that including "git blame" in such a weighing is
> > the mechanism for blocking otherwise beneficial change to the code. Or
> > to put it another way, I believe the value assigned to "git blame" in
> > such a comparison is miniscule / effectively zero. The only time
> > "git blame" should win is if the change in question is purely the
> > bike shed colour and has no technical benefits at all.  If there's any
> > technical benefit to making the change it should always win.  We
> > shouldn't preserve technical debt in the code merely to avoid an impact
> > on "git blame".
> 
> We're basically weighing "git blame" against syntax highlighting
> defaults. I don't think the latter has an obviously higher weight.

I think "syntax highlight defaults" is far from being an accurate
description of the motivations behind this discussion.

-- 
Eduardo