From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822171F45E for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 23:37:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727772AbgBPXg7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:36:59 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:51524 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726059AbgBPXg7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:36:59 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B550AE2BE; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:36:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=v15SbXKO4gbba2DzyInEKslYK1g=; b=MwJqH4 hOZMClyIHS7fhwe3XyBQOud1qHKwHtoBIf6zs1/efhFaP3lULBAx+nW4W97JE0MR NPLIbaxXFzQmUBmyzge+cmqxLy4Dfm0B+n9jMp8P/RxjTGAtQmtTHplKTzHneM5c MqzyzG7JH4+FOb8QuWeOdBqtcJsVkG6L6FLQc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=IyJjJnbDJ+kezxRpPmIe/eLIPUlYJOLh /NJ7oX2HUsF1Ngviu01jlw/O7zGTFYizAEFsDgtHoNJNA3V1GIGfu91wI2ibsRnJ ccVuBwg8Ims/P6XLtlhWPP5Wcv5dkwQjNMss2BirMd/UOlHbZd3+PrhrEf91Vta+ clBe/y5HrBY= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2310EAE2BD; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:36:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C0B1AE2BC; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:36:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/15] rev-list: allow bitmaps when counting objects References: <20200214182147.GA654525@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200214182222.GG150965@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200215004555.GB15192@syl.local> <20200215065500.GC1633703@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:36:53 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20200215065500.GC1633703@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sat, 15 Feb 2020 01:55:00 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 375DD05C-5115-11EA-884D-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: >> > + uint32_t commit_count = 0, >> > + tag_count = 0, >> > + tree_count = 0, >> > + blob_count = 0; >> >> Hmm, I don't usually see the comma-separated declaration/initialization >> in git.git. Is there a reason you did it here? Not that I really mind >> one way or the other, just interested. > > The variables are all related, and all should have the same type. I'd > complain about a patch that did: > > int ret, count; > > because there's no logical reason those two variables have the same > type. They just happen to. And putting them both on the same line is > even worse, because it makes a diff changing one of them noisy. > > But in the code quoted above, if one of them changes, they would all > (presumably) change. So I think it communicates something to group them > like this. I often apply exactly the same criteria as above to my code and review---since it is not just you (or me), perhaps CodingGuideline can help other readers, but I am OK to delay documenting it until we find the third person who has been applying this rule that has not been spelt out explicitly ;-)