Re: [PATCH/RFC/GSOC] make git-pull a builtin

[Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Paul,

On 2015-03-21 15:00, Paul Tan wrote:

> Thanks for your suggestions, I agree with most of them :).
> 
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> +static int parse_opt_rebase(const struct option *opt, const char
>>> *arg, int unset)
>>> +{
>>> +     if (arg)
>>> +             *(int *)opt->value = parse_rebase(arg);
>>> +     else
>>> +             *(int *)opt->value = unset ? REBASE_FALSE : REBASE_TRUE;
>>> +     return (*(int *)opt->value) >= 0 ? 0 : -1;
>>> +}
>>
>> In this function (and also in other places below), there is this pattern that a `struct option` pointer is passed to the function, but then only `*(int *)opt->value` is written to. Therefore, I would suggest to change the signature of the function and pass `(int *)opt->value` as function parameter.
> 
> It's used as a callback for the argument parser though, so the
> callback signature is required.

Good point ;-)

For readability, I would then suggest to declare `int *result = (int *)opt->value;` on the top of the function and then use `*result = ...` later.

>>> +static int has_unstaged_changes(void)
>>
>> Yeah, this function, as well as the ones below it, look as if they are so common that they *should* be already somewhere in libgit.a. But I did not find them, either...
>>
>> Of course it *would* be nice to identify places where essentially the same code is needed, and refactor accordingly. But I think that is outside the scope of this project.
> 
> Actually, I think that identifying the places where code can be
> trivially shared (without requiring major refactoring) should be part
> of the project, otherwise lots of code may be duplicated and cause
> code bloat. The obvious one would be fork_point() in this patch, which
> is copied from the merge-base builtin and not accessible because it
> has static linkage. The project should, at the very least, allow the
> function to be shared between git-pull and git-merge-base, as well as
> to modify the function so that it can fail without die()-ing.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. But I like your choice to strike a balance for the sake of a proof-of-concept.

Ciao,
Johannes