From: Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] branch: document the usage of certain parameters
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:31:58 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d4e61e9b-e7ed-3565-6017-128b2fe3b72a@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq4lryovnm.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Wednesday 20 September 2017 09:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> @@ -15,6 +15,11 @@
>> *
>> * - reflog creates a reflog for the branch
>> *
>> + * - if 'force' is true, clobber_head indicates whether the branch could be
>> + * the current branch; else it has no effect
> Everybody else in this list begins with what it is describing for
> easy eyeballing. Can you make this match that pattern?
Sure!
> Also, what does "could be" mean in that sentence? Is the caller
> telling the function "how, I do not exactly know if that is the
> case, but the branch I am asking to create you might be the same
> branch as what is currently checked out, so be extra careful"?
>
> Or is the comment telling a potential caller that it can pass true
> to signal that create_branch() is allowed to (re)"create" the branch
> that is already checked out (hence it already exists)?
Thanks. I didn't anticipate the possibility of misinterpretation.
> I think the confusing statement above arises because an assumption
> is unstated there. If the reader knows "Even with force, calling
> create_branch() on the currently checked out branch is normally
> forbidden", then the reader can guess your "could" mean the latter.
>
> - clobber_head_ok allows the currently checked out (hence
> existing) branch to be overwritten; without force, it has
> no effect.
>
> perhaps?
Sounds better. Will use it.
> ... As the underlying helper calls it clobber_head_ok, and
> that name is more clearly expresses that this is a permission than
> the current name, I chose to add _ok to the above example, but if
> you are to take the suggestion, you'd need to also update the names
> in the declaration, too.
Yes.
One thing I haven't done suspecting it wouldn't be encouraged is,
rearranging the order of parameters to group the related ones
together i.e., something like,
diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c
index 703ded69c..0ea105b55 100644
--- a/branch.c
+++ b/branch.c
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ N_("\n"
"\"git push -u\" to set the upstream config as you push.");
void create_branch(const char *name, const char *start_name,
- int force, int reflog, int clobber_head,
+ int force, int clobber_head_ok, int reflog,
int quiet, enum branch_track track)
{
struct commit *commit;
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ void create_branch(const char *name, const char *start_name,
if (validate_new_branchname(name, &ref, force,
track == BRANCH_TRACK_OVERRIDE ||
- clobber_head)) {
+ clobber_head_ok)) {
if (!force)
dont_change_ref = 1;
else
diff --git a/branch.h b/branch.h
index 33b7f5d88..c62763ac9 100644
--- a/branch.h
+++ b/branch.h
@@ -13,10 +13,10 @@
*
* - force enables overwriting an existing (non-head) branch
*
- * - reflog creates a reflog for the branch
+ * - clobber_head_ok allows the currently checked out (hence existing)
+ * branch to be overwritten; without 'force', it has no effect.
*
- * - if 'force' is true, clobber_head indicates whether the branch could be
- * the current branch; else it has no effect
+ * - reflog creates a reflog for the branch
*
* - quiet suppresses tracking information
*
@@ -24,8 +24,8 @@
* that start_name is a tracking branch for (if any).
*/
void create_branch(const char *name, const char *start_name,
- int force, int reflog,
- int clobber_head, int quiet, enum branch_track track);
+ int force, int clobber_head_ok,
+ int reflog, int quiet, enum branch_track track);
/*
* Validates that the requested branch may be created, returning the
diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
index 355f9ef5d..62c311478 100644
--- a/builtin/branch.c
+++ b/builtin/branch.c
@@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
die(_("the '--set-upstream' option is no longer supported. Please use '--track' or '--set-upstream-to' instead."));
create_branch(argv[0], (argc == 2) ? argv[1] : head,
- force, reflog, 0, quiet, track);
+ force, 0, reflog, quiet, track);
} else
usage_with_options(builtin_branch_usage, options);
diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c
index 76859da9d..116d4709d 100644
--- a/builtin/checkout.c
+++ b/builtin/checkout.c
@@ -641,8 +641,8 @@ static void update_refs_for_switch(const struct checkout_opts *opts,
else
create_branch(opts->new_branch, new->name,
opts->new_branch_force ? 1 : 0,
- opts->new_branch_log,
opts->new_branch_force ? 1 : 0,
+ opts->new_branch_log,
opts->quiet,
opts->track);
new->name = opts->new_branch;
Can I do this or should I keep the patch focused around the
documentation part alone?
---
Kaartic
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-20 9:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 127+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-24 15:41 [PATCH/RFC] branch: warn user about non-existent branch Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-07-24 19:16 ` Change in output as a result of patch Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-07-24 21:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-07-25 18:54 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-07-26 22:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-08-07 14:39 ` Can the '--set-upstream' option of branch be removed ? Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-07 14:39 ` [PATCH 1/2 / RFC] builtin/branch: remove the deprecated '--set-upstream' option Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-07 14:39 ` [PATCH 2/2 / RFC] branch: quote branch/ref names to improve readability Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-07 20:59 ` Can the '--set-upstream' option of branch be removed ? Junio C Hamano
2017-08-08 13:00 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-08 16:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-08-08 17:11 ` [PATCH v2 1/2 / RFC] builtin/branch: stop supporting the use of --set-upstream option Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-08 17:11 ` [PATCH v2 2/2 / RFC] branch: quote branch/ref names to improve readability Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-08 18:55 ` Stefan Beller
2017-08-08 19:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-08-08 20:08 ` Stefan Beller
2017-08-08 18:33 ` [PATCH v2 1/2 / RFC] builtin/branch: stop supporting the use of --set-upstream option Martin Ågren
2017-08-14 8:50 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-14 8:54 ` [PATCH v3 " Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-14 19:14 ` Martin Ågren
2017-08-15 10:23 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-14 20:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-08-15 10:56 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-15 18:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-08-16 18:13 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-16 19:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-08-17 2:04 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-12 6:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-12 7:00 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-12 10:31 ` [PATCH/RFC] branch: strictly don't allow a branch with name 'HEAD' Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-17 2:54 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] test: cleanup cruft of a test Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-17 2:54 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] builtin/branch: stop supporting the use of --set-upstream option Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-17 18:21 ` Martin Ågren
2017-08-17 19:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-08-18 2:41 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-18 16:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-08-18 16:57 ` Martin Ågren
2017-08-17 19:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-08-18 2:39 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-18 16:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-08-17 2:54 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] branch: quote branch/ref names to improve readability Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-08-07 14:49 ` Change in output as a result of patch Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-19 7:15 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] branch: improve error messages of branch renaming Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-19 7:15 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] builtin/checkout: avoid usage of '!!' Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-20 4:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-20 8:09 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-20 11:26 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-21 1:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-23 12:17 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-19 7:15 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] branch: document the usage of certain parameters Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-20 4:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-20 9:01 ` Kaartic Sivaraam [this message]
2017-09-21 1:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-19 7:15 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] branch: cleanup branch name validation Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-20 4:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-20 12:04 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-21 1:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-23 12:52 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-20 14:52 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-19 7:15 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] branch: introduce dont_fail parameter for update validation Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-19 7:15 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] builtin/branch: give more useful error messages when renaming Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-19 8:41 ` [RFC SAMPLE] " Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-19 9:33 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-20 20:57 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] " Stefan Beller
2017-09-23 10:50 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-25 8:20 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Give more useful error messages when renaming a branch Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-25 8:20 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] branch: improve documentation and naming of certain parameters Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-10-20 21:33 ` Stefan Beller
2017-10-20 21:51 ` Eric Sunshine
2017-10-21 2:32 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-10-21 2:31 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-25 8:20 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] branch: re-order function arguments to group related arguments Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-10-20 21:50 ` Stefan Beller
2017-10-21 2:56 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-10-23 19:32 ` Stefan Beller
2017-09-25 8:20 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] branch: cleanup branch name validation Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-25 8:20 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/5] branch: introduce dont_fail parameter for create validation Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-25 8:20 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] builtin/branch: give more useful error messages when renaming Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-10-23 19:44 ` Stefan Beller
2017-10-24 3:37 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-10-20 7:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Give more useful error messages when renaming a branch Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-10-20 18:58 ` Stefan Beller
2017-11-02 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] give more useful error messages while renaming branch Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-02 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] branch: improve documentation and naming of 'create_branch()' Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-02 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] branch: re-order function arguments to group related arguments Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-06 2:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-12 13:27 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-13 2:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-13 3:06 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-02 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] branch: introduce dont_fail parameter for branchname validation Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-02 8:39 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-02 18:42 ` Stefan Beller
2017-11-03 2:58 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-06 2:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-12 13:33 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-02 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] builtin/branch: give more useful error messages when renaming Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-02 14:21 ` Eric Sunshine
2017-11-03 2:41 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-06 2:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-12 14:05 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-12 18:23 ` Kevin Daudt
2017-11-13 2:31 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-13 11:30 ` Kevin Daudt
2017-11-14 5:25 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-18 17:26 ` [PATCH 0/4] cleanups surrounding branch Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-18 17:26 ` [PATCH 1/4] branch: improve documentation and naming of create_branch() parameters Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-18 17:26 ` [PATCH 2/4] branch: group related arguments of create_branch() Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-18 17:26 ` [PATCH 3/4] branch: update warning message shown when copying a misnamed branch Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-18 17:26 ` [PATCH 4/4] builtin/branch: strip refs/heads/ using skip_prefix Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-19 1:04 ` Eric Sunshine
2017-11-19 17:21 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-19 18:06 ` Eric Sunshine
2017-11-29 3:46 ` [PATCH v4 " Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-12-01 5:59 ` [PATCH v5 " Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-12-04 4:29 ` SZEDER Gábor
2017-12-07 23:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-12-07 23:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-12-08 17:39 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2018-03-10 15:54 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] give more useful error messages while renaming branch (reboot) Kaartic Sivaraam
2018-03-10 15:54 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] branch: introduce dont_fail parameter for branchname validation Kaartic Sivaraam
2018-03-15 20:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-03-16 18:12 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2018-03-10 15:54 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] builtin/branch: give more useful error messages when renaming Kaartic Sivaraam
2018-03-15 20:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-03-24 17:09 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2018-03-10 15:54 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] t/t3200: fix a typo in a test description Kaartic Sivaraam
2018-03-15 20:41 ` Junio C Hamano
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=d4e61e9b-e7ed-3565-6017-128b2fe3b72a@gmail.com \
--to=kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.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).