From: hukeping <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <email@example.com>, Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Zhengjunling (JRing, Task Force)" <email@example.com>,
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Lengthening FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX to 80
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:51:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
>From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 5:17 AM
>To: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Cc: hukeping <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org; Zhengjunling (JRing,
>Task Force) <email@example.com>; zhuangbiaowei
><firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lengthening FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX to 80
>Jeff King <email@example.com> writes:
>>> Considered the prefix patch number "0001-" would take 5 characters,
>>> increase the FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX to 80.
>> As the code is written now, the length also includes the ".patch"
>> suffix, as well as an extra byte (maybe for a NUL? Once upon a time I
>> imagine we used static buffers, but these days it's all in a strbuf).
>> A simple test with:
>> git init
>> for i in $(seq 8); do printf 1234567890; done |
>> git commit --allow-empty -F -
>> git format-patch -1
>> shows us generating:
>> So that's only 52 characters, from our constant of 64. Bumping to 80
>> gives us 66, which is reasonable though probably still involves
>> occasional truncation. But maybe keeping the total length to 80 (79,
>> really, because of the extra byte) may be worth doing.
>> Which is all a long-winded way of saying that your patch seems
>> reasonable to me.
>A devil's advocate thinks that we should shorten it (and rename it to format-
>patch-subject-prefix-length or something) instead. That way, "ls" output can
>show more than one files on a single line even on a 80-column terminal. The
>leading digits already guarantee the uniqueness anyway.
>I do not mind getting rid of the "FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX" constant and
>replacing it with a variable that defaults to 64 and can be tweaked by a command
>line option and/or a configuration variable.
>It does not feel it is worth the effort to replace one hardcoded constant with
>another hardcoded constant.
>> Looking at the code which uses the constant, I suspect it could also
>> be made simpler:
>> - the PATH_MAX check in open_next_file() seems pointless. Once upon a
>> time it mattered for fitting into a PATH_MAX buffer, but these days
>> we use a dynamic buffer anyway. We are probably better off to just
>> feed the result to the filesystem and see if it complains (since
>> either way we are aborting; I'd feel differently if we adjusted our
>> truncation size)
>> - the logic in fmt_output_subject() could probably be simpler if the
>> constant was "here's how long the subject should be", not "here's
>> how long the whole thing must be".
>> But those are both orthogonal to your patch and can be done separately.
>Yes, these clean-ups seem worth doing.
Agreed, and I'd like to do it with two separated commits:
- commit-1, cleanup the open_next_file() by drop the if (filename.len>=..) statements.
- commit-2, replace FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX in fmt_output_subject() with a constant
in there and make it to 80(or other value?), and drop FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX
Is this works for you?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-06 8:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-05 20:15 [PATCH] Lengthening FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX to 80 Hu Keping
2020-11-05 15:01 ` Jeff King
2020-11-05 21:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-06 8:51 ` hukeping [this message]
2020-11-06 17:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-06 20:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-06 21:56 ` [PATCH] format-patch: make output filename configurable Junio C Hamano
2020-11-06 22:05 ` Eric Sunshine
2020-11-09 19:23 ` [PATCH v2] " Junio C Hamano
2020-11-10 0:23 ` Jeff King
2020-11-10 1:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-10 2:31 ` hukeping
2020-11-10 2:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-10 4:44 ` hukeping
2020-11-10 5:40 ` Junio C Hamano
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:
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 \
* 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
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).