From: Jeff King <peff@peff•net>
To: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1•demon.co.uk>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>,
GIT Mailing-list <git@vger•kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] object: make add_object_array_with_mode a static function
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:03:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141019020319.GB17908@peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5442F56B.8020205@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:19:07AM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> I noticed that your 'jk/prune-mtime' branch also removes the only
> call to the add_object_array_with_mode() function outside of the
> object.c file; specifically commit 75ac69fa ("traverse_commit_list:
> support pending blobs/trees with paths", 15-10-2014).
>
> This patch (which was generated using the '--histogram' option to
> format-patch), moves the function to before the definition of the
> add_object_array() function (to avoid a forward declaration), and
> makes it static.
>
> If you need to re-roll this branch, could you please squash this
> patch into the above commit. (again, assuming you have no plans
> to add new external callers.)
That seems reasonable. Because it's a code movement, I'd actually be
just as happy with it as a separate patch, where it's more obvious what
is going on.
> [If new external callers are very likely in the future (i.e. this
> function is an essential part of the object-array API), then it may
> well not be worth doing this. (with perhaps a note in the commit
> message? - dunno). Similar comments apply to the previous 'add_object'
> patch as well!]
I actually wondered while writing this series whether anyone actually
_uses_ the mode in object_array (the new code I added sets it to the
appropriate value to be on the safe side, but traverse_commit_list does
not actually care about it).
Digging in the history, it looks like it is used for blob-to-blob diffs
(see 01618a3, "use mode of the tree in git-diff, if <tree>:<file> syntax
is used", 2007-04-22). And that still seems to be the case today. It's a
shame we have to keep such complication around for one single case
(especially because getting it wrong in other cases is likely to go
unnoticed for years), but I think it would probably require major
surgery to extract it.
I think we can take your patch a step further, though, like:
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] drop add_object_array_with_mode
This is a thin compatibility wrapper around
add_pending_object_with_path. But the only caller is
add_object_array, which is itself just a thin compatibility
wrapper. There are no external callers, so we can just
remove this middle wrapper.
Noticed-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1•demon.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff•net>
---
I also wondered if add_pending_object_with_mode could get the same
treatment. But we _do_ use it in setup_revisions and friends when we
parse something like "HEAD:foo". It would be trivial here to call
add_pending_object_with_path instead, and actually feed "foo". That
would mean that "git rev-list --objects HEAD:foo" reported the pathname
"foo" alongside the object. Or if "foo" is a tree, all of its sub-parts
would be "foo/whatever" instead of just "whatever". That seems somewhat
sensible to me, but I would be unsurprised if it broke some weird corner
case that is expecting paths to be relative to the given tree.
object.c | 7 +------
object.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/object.c b/object.c
index df86bdd..23d6c96 100644
--- a/object.c
+++ b/object.c
@@ -341,12 +341,7 @@ void add_object_array_with_path(struct object *obj, const char *name,
void add_object_array(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array)
{
- add_object_array_with_mode(obj, name, array, S_IFINVALID);
-}
-
-void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode)
-{
- add_object_array_with_path(obj, name, array, mode, NULL);
+ add_object_array_with_path(obj, name, array, S_IFINVALID, NULL);
}
/*
diff --git a/object.h b/object.h
index e5178a5..6416247 100644
--- a/object.h
+++ b/object.h
@@ -114,7 +114,6 @@ int object_list_contains(struct object_list *list, struct object *obj);
/* Object array handling .. */
void add_object_array(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array);
-void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode);
void add_object_array_with_path(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode, const char *path);
typedef int (*object_array_each_func_t)(struct object_array_entry *, void *);
--
2.1.2.596.g7379948
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-19 2:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-18 23:19 [PATCH] object: make add_object_array_with_mode a static function Ramsay Jones
2014-10-19 2:03 ` Jeff King [this message]
2014-10-19 10:21 ` Ramsay Jones
2014-10-20 16:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-10-20 17:03 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141019020319.GB17908@peff.net \
--to=peff@peff$(echo .)net \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=ramsay@ramsay1$(echo .)demon.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox