Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 20/25] sequencer: refactor write_message()

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:26:16 -0700

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

> If I were doing this, I would make this into three separate steps:
>
>     - move the strbuf_release(msgbuf) to the caller in
>       do_pick_commit();
>
>     - add the missing rollback_lock_file(), which is a bugfix; and
>       then finally
>
>     - allow the helper to take not a strbuf but <buf, len> pair as
>       parameters.
>
> The end result of this patch achieves two thirds of the above, but
> especially given that write_message() only has two call sites in a
> single function, I think it is OK and preferrable even to do all
> three.

Ah, make that four steps.  The final one is:

    - add append_eol parameter that nobody uses at this step in the
      series.

This is a new feature to the helper.  While it is OK to have it as a
preparatory step in this series, it is easier to understand if it
kept as a separate step.  It is even more preferrable if it is made
as a preparatory step in a series that adds a caller that passes
true to append_eol to this helper, or if that real change is small
enough, part of that patch that adds such a caller, not as a
separate step.