From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] built-in rebase: reinstate `checkout -q` behavior where appropriate
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:42:45 +0100 (STD) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1811121235120.39@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1s7r3pqy.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
Hi Junio,
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> >> > static int reset_head(struct object_id *oid, const char *action,
> >> > - const char *switch_to_branch, int detach_head,
> >> > + const char *switch_to_branch,
> >> > + int detach_head, int reset_hard,
> >>
> >> It might be worth switching to a single flag variable here. It would
> >> make calls like this:
> >>
> >> > - if (reset_head(&options.onto->object.oid, "checkout", NULL, 1,
> >> > + if (reset_head(&options.onto->object.oid, "checkout", NULL, 1, 0,
> >> > NULL, msg.buf))
> >>
> >> a little more self-documenting (if a little more verbose).
> >
> > I thought about that, but for just two flags? Well, let me try it and see
> > whether I like the result ;-)
>
> My rule of thumb is that repeating three times is definitely when we
> should consolidate separate ones into a single flag word, and twice
> is a borderline.
>
> For two-time repetition, it is often worth fixing when somebody
> notices it during the review, as that is a sign that repetition,
> even a minor one, disturbed a reader enough to point out.
That's my thought exactly, hence I looked into it. The end result is
actually easier to read, in particular the commit that re-introduces the
`reset --hard` behavior: it no longer touches *all* callsites of
`reset_head()` but only the relevant ones.
> On the other hand, for a file-scope static that is likely to stay as a
> non-API function but a local helper, it may not be worth it.
Oh, do you think that `reset_head()` is likely to stay as non-API
function? I found myself in the need of repeating this tedious
unpack_trees() dance quite a few times over the past two years, and it is
*always* daunting because the API is *that* unintuitive.
So I *do* hope that `reset_head()` will actually be moved to reset.[ch]
eventually, and callsites e.g. in `sequencer.c` will be converted from
calling `unpack_trees()` to calling `reset_head()` instead.
v2 on the way,
Dscho
> So I am OK either way, slightly in favor of fixing it while we
> remember.
>
>
> >> This one could actually turn into:
> >>
> >> ret = error(...);
> >> goto leave_reset_head;
> >>
> >> now. We don't have to worry about an uninitialized desc.buffer anymore
> >> (as I mentioned in the previous email), because "nr" would be 0.
> >>
> >> It doesn't save any lines, though (but maybe having a single
> >> cleanup/exit point would make things easier to read; I dunno).
> >
> > But you're right, of course. Consistency makes for easier-to-read code.
>
> Yup, that does sound good.
>
> Thanks.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-12 11:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-09 9:34 [PATCH 0/2] Fix built-in rebase perf regression Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2018-11-09 9:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] rebase: consolidate clean-up code before leaving reset_head() Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2018-11-09 10:03 ` Jeff King
2018-11-09 17:13 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-11-09 9:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] built-in rebase: reinstate `checkout -q` behavior where appropriate Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2018-11-09 10:11 ` Jeff King
2018-11-09 17:21 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-11-09 19:59 ` Jeff King
2018-11-12 11:11 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-11-12 4:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-11-12 11:42 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2018-11-13 1:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-11-13 6:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-11-12 11:44 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Fix built-in rebase perf regression Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2018-11-12 11:44 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] rebase: consolidate clean-up code before leaving reset_head() Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2018-11-12 11:44 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] rebase: prepare reset_head() for more flags Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2018-11-12 11:44 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] built-in rebase: reinstate `checkout -q` behavior where appropriate Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2018-11-12 14:26 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Fix built-in rebase perf regression Johannes Schindelin
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=nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1811121235120.39@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet \
--to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/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).