Re: [PATCH] interpret-trailers: obey scissors lines

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:32:24PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:12:03AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> >> diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
> >> >> index 2de5f6cc6..2ce9c339d 100644
> >> >> --- a/builtin/commit.c
> >> >> +++ b/builtin/commit.c
> >> >> @@ -1735,7 +1735,8 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >> >>  
> >> >>  	if (verbose || /* Truncate the message just before the diff, if any. */
> >> >>  	    cleanup_mode == CLEANUP_SCISSORS)
> >> >> -		wt_status_truncate_message_at_cut_line(&sb);
> >> >> +		strbuf_setlen(&sb,
> >> >> +			      wt_status_last_nonscissors_index(sb.buf, sb.len));
> >> >
> >> > This hunk surprised me at first (that we would need to touch commit.c at
> >> > all), but the refactoring makes sense.
> >> 
> >> This still surprises me.  If the problem is in interpret-trailers,
> >> why do we even need to touch cmd_commit()?  If GIT_EDITOR returns us
> >
> > The behavior of cmd_commit() shouldn't be changed by the patch. But to
> > make the interface suitable for the new callsite (which doesn't have a
> > strbuf, but a ptr/len buffer), it needs to return the length rather than
> > shortening the strbuf. We could leave in place:
> >
> >   void wt_status_truncate_message_at_cut_line(struct strbuf *sb)
> >   {
> > 	strbuf_setlen(sb, wt_status_last_nonscissors_index(sb->buf, sb->len));
> >   }
> >
> > but it would only have this one caller.
> >
> > If I were doing the patch series, I'd probably have split that
> > refactoring into its own patch and discussed the reason separately. I
> > waffled on whether or not to ask Brian to do so (and obviously didn't in
> > the end).
> 
> I suspect that you would have just explained "since there is only
> one caller, let's open-code it" in the log message, without making
> this a two-patch series, and that would also have been perfectly
> understandable (and in this case probably preferrable).
> 
> So the patch text would be OK; it was surprising to have the change
> without being explained, that's all.

Yeah, I'd agree it could use a better explanation in the commit message.
I was surprised to see it, too. Since both of us were surprised, that's
probably a good indicator. :)

-Peff