Subject: [PATCH 0/3] name_decoration cleanups

From: Jeff King <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:20:51 -0400

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:11:09PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:26:39AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> Good digging, and I agree that it should use the FLEX_ARRAY for
> >> consistency.
> >
> > I can produce a patch, but I did not want to steal Arjun's thunder.
> 
> Hmph, would it have to overlap?  I think we can queue Arjun's patch
> with +1 fix and FLEX_ARRAY thing separately, and they can go in in
> any order, no?

I more meant my suggestion to use add_name_decoration consistently. That
fixes the r->type thing _and_ replaces Arjun's patch. Fixing FLEX_ARRAY
on top is just gravy. :)

Here's the patch series I was thinking of:

  [1/3]: log-tree: make add_name_decoration a public function
  [2/3]: log-tree: make name_decoration hash static
  [3/3]: log-tree: use FLEX_ARRAY in name_decoration

I almost added a 4/3 to convert "name_decoration" to
"commit_decoration", since that is how it is used (and name_decoration
is somewhat vague). But we actually do annotate other non-commit objects
that refs point to, as well. I'm not sure there is a way to _show_ them
currently, but I'd just as soon leave it as-is.

-Peff