On 7/13/26 05:02, Alyssa Ross wrote: > Demi Marie Obenour writes: > >> On 7/10/26 09:43, Alyssa Ross wrote: >>> Demi Marie Obenour writes: >>> >>>> I noticed that vm-import, run-appimage, and run-flatpak all have the >>>> same code to start a VM, and run-flatpak and run-appimage both have >>>> the same code to shut down a VM. Is this intentional, or should it >>>> be replaced with common code? >>> >>> Yes, it probably should. But it is sort of intentional — sometimes I'm >>> not sure exactly which parts should be shared, so I leave code >>> duplicated for a while with the idea that it'll become more clear what >>> the common core should be over time. (It usually works out.) Without a >>> good understanding, it's easy to deduplicate too much, and end up with >>> something that isn't flexible enough down the line, and then it has to >>> be un-deduplicated again. Happy for you to try deduplicating it if you >>> think you have a good idea of where to draw that line, but otherwise >>> it's also fine for it to stay duplicated for now. >> >> The code that creates temporary files and per-VM users is the same for >> vm-import, run-appimage, and run-flatpak. The code that tears down >> instances and namespaces is the same for run-appimage and run-flatpak. > > Right, but my point is that doesn't *ncessarily* mean that those > individual things would make sense as their own reusable components. > It might do, but it's not inferrable just from the duplication. The big advantage of deduplication is that it makes modification much easier, as I found out when adding cgroup support. -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)