Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] for-each-ref: re-structure code for moving to 'ref-filter'

From: Matthieu Moy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:49:49 +0200

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:

> Yuck; I can see what you are doing but can you imitate what the more
> experienced people (e.g. peff, mhagger) do when restructuring
> existing code and do things in smaller increments?

Seconded. Some reasons/guide to split:

* Split trivial and non-trivial stuff. I can quickly review a
  "rename-only" patch even if it's a bit long (essentially, I'll check
  that you did find-and-replace properly), but reviewing a mix of
  renames and actual code change is hard.

* Split controversial and non-controversial stuff. For example, you
  changed the ordering of fields in a struct. Perhaps it was not a good
  idea. Perhaps it was a good idea, but then you want this reordering to
  be alone in its patch so that you can explain why it's a good idea in
  the commit message (you'll see me use the word "why" a lot when
  talking about commit messages; not a coincidence).

* Split code movement and other stuff. For example extraction of
  match_name_as_path() would be trivial if made in its own patch.

I'd also make a separate patch "introduce the ref_list data-structure"
to introduce struct ref_list and basic helper functions (constructors,
mutators, destructors).

It will take time and may appear to be counter-productive at first, but
you'll get used to it, and you'll end up being actually more productive
this way (well, maybe not "you" but the set "you + reviewers").

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/