Remove unused include in hash.cpp #11884

1. 
   kallewoof commented at 5:48 am on December 13, 2017: member
2. fanquake added the label Refactoring on Dec 13, 2017
3. 
   sipa commented at 5:56 am on December 13, 2017: member

   Please don’t mark this as trivial (it’s changing the code being compiled), but otherwise obvious ACK.
4. fanquake renamed this:
   [trivial] Remove unused include in hash.cpp
   Remove unused include in hash.cpp
   on Dec 13, 2017
5. jonasschnelli approved
6. 
   jonasschnelli commented at 6:06 am on December 13, 2017: contributor

   utACK c1e5e27e7a612703f7351f8fc9ce47be669d93ca
7. 
   kallewoof commented at 6:11 am on December 13, 2017: member

   Please don’t mark this as trivial (it’s changing the code being compiled), but otherwise obvious ACK.

   You could argue that it doesn’t, actually, but I’ll keep that in mind.

8. 
   laanwj commented at 7:11 am on December 13, 2017: member

   You could argue that it doesn’t, actually, but I’ll keep that in mind.

   One way to find out for sure: compare executables with https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools/blob/master/build-for-compare.py. (though I don’t think this argument is worth it, utACK anyhow, please update the commit message too)

9. 
   practicalswift commented at 9:26 am on December 13, 2017: contributor

   utACK c1e5e27e7a612703f7351f8fc9ce47be669d93ca
10. Remove unused include in hash.cpp 3f09e03e0f
11. kallewoof force-pushed on Dec 13, 2017
12. 
    kallewoof commented at 11:09 am on December 13, 2017: member

    Removed “[trivial]” from commit message.
13. 
    promag commented at 4:09 pm on December 13, 2017: member

    utACK 3f09e03.
14. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 6:53 pm on December 13, 2017: member

    Tend to NACK here, since a related pull was just merged: #10574 and I fail to see why this change wasn’t included there. I’d rather avoid another upcoming wave of commits with little value compared to the review it has to go through.

    I am fine if you improve the travis check (#11878) instead.

    In case my NACK is invalid, binary diff:

    0<   3554a6:	mov    $0x6b,%edx
    1---
    2>   3554a6:	mov    $0x6a,%edx
    

    utACK 3f09e03e0f2ddbcd7ccaa9d21062be97dab2883a

15. 
    kallewoof commented at 2:40 am on December 14, 2017: member

    @MarcoFalke I don’t see why the other merge is related, and I don’t think this commit has little value. Removing redundant/unused includes is quite beneficial in many cases. And one-liners are trivial to review.

    The duplicate includes PR you pointed to seems slightly unrelated. This isn’t a duplicate include, this is an unused include. Nowhere in the hash.cpp code does it use anything from pubkey.h. It may be possible to use static analysers to detect that sort of thing, but it smells like something that would give false positives occasionally.

16. dcousens approved
17. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 4:55 am on December 14, 2017: member

    @kallewoof Jup, you are right.
18. laanwj merged this on Dec 14, 2017
19. laanwj closed this on Dec 14, 2017

    ---

20. laanwj referenced this in commit 66479c0e61 on Dec 14, 2017
21. kallewoof deleted the branch on Oct 17, 2019
22. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 39a014c722 on Feb 13, 2020
23. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit f72e81f0e8 on Feb 27, 2020
24. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit fcf16eb402 on Mar 14, 2020
25. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 7f9ca9d119 on Mar 19, 2020
26. PastaPastaPasta referenced this in commit 411c57995b on Mar 24, 2020
27. ckti referenced this in commit a4b951cbe1 on Mar 28, 2021
28. DrahtBot locked this on Dec 16, 2021

Contributors
kallewoof sipa jonasschnelli laanwj practicalswift promag MarcoFalke dcousens

Labels
Refactoring