From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jltobler@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] maintenance: add checking logic in `pack_refs_condition()`
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 07:58:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZT6CnTRz5bX+Vv7pb_3oqV0XNSMEzh=57sF6O5bFYxWhQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpl9vjiaj.fsf@gitster.g>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1876 bytes --]
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
>
>>> + /* Check for all refs, similar to 'git refs optimize --all'. */
>>> + string_list_append(optimize_opts.includes, "*");
>>> +
>>> + if (refs_optimize_required(get_main_ref_store(the_repository),
>>> + &optimize_opts, &required))
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + clear_ref_exclusions(&excludes);
>>> + string_list_clear(&included_refs, 0);
>>> +
>>> + return required == true;
>>
>> Tiny nit: I think in our codebase this can be written in a more
>> idiomatic way by saying `!!required`.
>
> Comparing for equality with Boolean in general is stupid, as
> Booleans are designed to be usable as-is. If it is "true", it is
> true, and you do not have to compare it with "true" to ascertain
> that it is true.
>
> I do 100% prefer "!!required" over "required == true" or "required
> != false" all the time, since it is more idiomatic, but I vaguely
> recall we had something that contradicts it in the CodingGuidelines
> document. Perhaps we'd want to fix that.
>
I could only find
- Some clever tricks, like using the !! operator with arithmetic
constructs, can be extremely confusing to others. Avoid them,
unless there is a compelling reason to use them.
I think its okay? This is more of a suggestion than a rule.
> Thanks.
>
>
> [Footnote]
>
> But doesn't your suggested rewrite potentially change the meaning?
>
> The original allows required to be "true" and nothing else, while
> "!!required" allows it to be any form of true (and in C, things that
> are not zero, even a pointer that is not NULL, are all true).
I get what you mean, but with the context that required is of type
'bool', this would mean that we simply convert it to '0'/'1' here.
With all this, perhaps `return required` as used in the v1 was the best
approach. I'm happy to go either ways.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 690 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-07 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-31 14:22 [PATCH 0/5] maintenance: add an 'is-needed' subcommand Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 14:22 ` [PATCH 1/5] reftable/stack: return stack segments directly Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 16:22 ` Justin Tobler
2025-11-03 15:05 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-03 18:03 ` Justin Tobler
2025-10-31 14:22 ` [PATCH 2/5] reftable/stack: add function to check if optimization is required Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 17:02 ` Justin Tobler
2025-10-31 18:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-03 16:20 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-03 15:51 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-03 17:59 ` Justin Tobler
2025-11-03 14:00 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-03 16:35 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 14:22 ` [PATCH 3/5] refs: add a `optimize_required` field to `struct ref_storage_be` Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 14:22 ` [PATCH 4/5] maintenance: add checking logic in `pack_refs_condition()` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-03 14:00 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-03 17:04 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 14:22 ` [PATCH 5/5] maintenance: add 'is-needed' subcommand Karthik Nayak
2025-11-03 14:00 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-03 17:18 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 5:54 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-04 8:28 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 8:43 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] maintenance: add an " Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 8:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] reftable/stack: return stack segments directly Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 8:43 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] reftable/stack: add function to check if optimization is required Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 20:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-05 14:11 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-05 18:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-06 8:18 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 8:43 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] refs: add a `optimize_required` field to `struct ref_storage_be` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 8:43 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] maintenance: add checking logic in `pack_refs_condition()` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 8:44 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] maintenance: add 'is-needed' subcommand Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 15:43 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] maintenance: add an " Junio C Hamano
2025-11-05 14:00 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 8:22 ` [PATCH v3 " Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 8:22 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] reftable/stack: return stack segments directly Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 8:22 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] reftable/stack: add function to check if optimization is required Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 18:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-07 6:06 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-06 8:22 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] refs: add a `optimize_required` field to `struct ref_storage_be` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 8:22 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] maintenance: add checking logic in `pack_refs_condition()` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 11:58 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-06 13:04 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 15:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-07 15:58 ` Karthik Nayak [this message]
2025-11-07 16:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-07 15:58 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 8:22 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] maintenance: add 'is-needed' subcommand Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 12:02 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-06 13:07 ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] maintenance: add an " Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] reftable/stack: return stack segments directly Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] reftable/stack: add function to check if optimization is required Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] refs: add a `optimize_required` field to `struct ref_storage_be` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] maintenance: add checking logic in `pack_refs_condition()` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] maintenance: add 'is-needed' subcommand Karthik Nayak
2025-11-10 6:46 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] maintenance: add an " Patrick Steinhardt
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='CAOLa=ZT6CnTRz5bX+Vv7pb_3oqV0XNSMEzh=57sF6O5bFYxWhQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=karthik.188@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jltobler@gmail.com \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
/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).