Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 06/11] util: use glib base64 encoding/decoding APIs

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 05:03:47PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 15:53:35 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 13:41 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 02:18:17PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 13:56 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:

> > There's really not any significant real world pain from mixing the > > two styles. It is visually distasteful but doesn't cause any functional > > problems at runtime, nor complexity for maintainers. A large conversion > > over the whole codebase does cause very significant pain in conflicts > > for anyone cherry picking patches. That is just not a net win overall. > > I'll take visually mixed styles any day over creating patch conflicts > > in backports. > > I don't see how. If the end-goal is to convert everything to the new > form you will get into potential pain/conflicts sooner or later anyways. If we incrementally convert methods, then when backporting a patch related to that method, we have good chance of being able to cherry-pick the small conversion patch. If we bulk convert entire file at a time, across the whole codebase, attempting to cherry-pick the conversion patches will have much higher conflict liklihood.

> Or the other option is to leave it as a half-done lingering refactor and > that doesn't help either. It don't be in a half-done state forever. We can let things be converted incrementally over the next 3-6 months. At the end of say 6 months if anything is left we bulk convert it them. That gets the benefits opf incremental work without downside of stuff remaining unconverted forever.