git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
To: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Cc: "Git List" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
	"Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] builtin/mv: remove get_pathspec()
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 11:58:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZ7oS+AQgq91WRaFTCKGUnZj-cZB1YPkjQo9KAueqEN3w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cRREzwRJV-az-p-r1E7JyDqDZ4GPvM1cQQzXXNyLjGPUQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>>  builtin/mv: remove get_pathspec()
>
> Misleading. Perhaps rephrase as:
>
>     mv: drop dependency upon deprecated get_pathspec
>
>> `get_pathspec` is deprecated and builtin/mv.c is its last caller, so
>> reimplement `get_pathspec` literally in builtin/mv.c
>
> Curious. Since this is just moving code around, rather than doing the
> actual work to complete the final step as stated by the NEEDSWORK
> comment, isn't it just moving the "problem" from one location to
> another? Is it worth the code churn?

Yeah it is moving around the problem a bit. And the code churn is
unfortunate. Though when I was reading the documentation on
pathspecs, literally the first sentence was "Do not use get_pathspec,
it is out dated". And that was a sad taste for reading documentation.

It's ok to have such warnings in the docs, but as the first sentence as if
there was nothing more important than avoiding the out dated stuff? I
mean I want to understand the actual code and how I can use it, right?

And there are different approaches to solving the problem.
I could have just reworded or even just rearranged the documentation.

The approach I take here includes a bit of code churn, but it moves the
problematic pieces all in one spot.

>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/builtin/mv.c b/builtin/mv.c
>> index d1d4316..99e9b3c 100644
>> --- a/builtin/mv.c
>> +++ b/builtin/mv.c
>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>  #include "string-list.h"
>>  #include "parse-options.h"
>>  #include "submodule.h"
>> +#include "pathspec.h"
>>
>>  static const char * const builtin_mv_usage[] = {
>>         N_("git mv [<options>] <source>... <destination>"),
>> @@ -20,13 +21,16 @@ static const char * const builtin_mv_usage[] = {
>>  #define KEEP_TRAILING_SLASH 2
>>
>>  static const char **internal_copy_pathspec(const char *prefix,
>> -                                          const char **pathspec,
>> +                                          const char **argv,
>
> What is this change about? It doesn't seem to be related to anything
> else in the patch or to its stated purpose, and makes the argument's
> purpose less clear, so it's not obvious why it is a good change.
>
>>                                            int count, unsigned flags)
>>  {
>>         int i;
>> +       struct pathspec ps;
>>         const char **result = xmalloc((count + 1) * sizeof(const char *));
>> -       memcpy(result, pathspec, count * sizeof(const char *));
>> +       memcpy(result, argv, count * sizeof(const char *));
>>         result[count] = NULL;
>> +
>> +       /* NEEDSWORK: Move these preprocessing steps into parse_pathspec */
>>         for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>>                 int length = strlen(result[i]);
>>                 int to_copy = length;
>> @@ -42,7 +46,13 @@ static const char **internal_copy_pathspec(const char *prefix,
>>                                 result[i] = it;
>>                 }
>>         }
>> -       return get_pathspec(prefix, result);
>> +
>> +       parse_pathspec(&ps,
>> +                      PATHSPEC_ALL_MAGIC &
>> +                      ~(PATHSPEC_FROMTOP | PATHSPEC_LITERAL),
>> +                      PATHSPEC_PREFER_CWD,
>> +                      prefix, result);
>> +       return ps._raw;
>>  }
>>
>>  static const char *add_slash(const char *path)
>> --
>> 2.5.0.239.g9728e1d.dirty

  reply	other threads:[~2015-08-06 18:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-03 17:53 [PATCH] builtin/mv: Get rid of the last caller of get_pathspec Stefan Beller
2015-08-03 22:48 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-08-06 18:27   ` [PATCH 0/2] Remove get_pathspec finally Stefan Beller
2015-08-06 18:27     ` [PATCH 1/2] builtin/mv: remove get_pathspec() Stefan Beller
2015-08-06 18:46       ` Eric Sunshine
2015-08-06 18:58         ` Stefan Beller [this message]
2015-08-06 20:18           ` Eric Sunshine
2015-08-06 20:59             ` Stefan Beller
2015-08-06 18:27     ` [PATCH 2/2] pathspec: remove deprecated get_pathspec Stefan Beller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAGZ79kZ7oS+AQgq91WRaFTCKGUnZj-cZB1YPkjQo9KAueqEN3w@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=sbeller@google.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
    --cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).