From: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
To: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, christian.couder@gmail.com,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] for-each-ref: re-structure code for moving to 'ref-filter'
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:26:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <vpq1ti1vt6p.fsf@anie.imag.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5566BEF2.2000301@gmail.com> (Karthik Nayak's message of "Thu, 28 May 2015 12:38:34 +0530")
Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
> On 05/26/2015 09:19 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Seconded. Some reasons/guide to split:
>>
>> * Split trivial and non-trivial stuff. I can quickly review a
>> "rename-only" patch even if it's a bit long (essentially, I'll check
>> that you did find-and-replace properly), but reviewing a mix of
>> renames and actual code change is hard.
>>
>> * Split controversial and non-controversial stuff. For example, you
>> changed the ordering of fields in a struct. Perhaps it was not a good
>> idea. Perhaps it was a good idea, but then you want this reordering to
>> be alone in its patch so that you can explain why it's a good idea in
>> the commit message (you'll see me use the word "why" a lot when
>> talking about commit messages; not a coincidence).
>
> Since one of the patches is to restructure and rename 'for-each-ref', I thought
> It would be ideal to introduce the data structures within that patch, What do you
> think?
I don't have a universal answer: in general I prefer (let's say "this
list prefers") splitting as much as possible. It may make sense to group
"add data structure X" with "use data-structure X" to make sure that
functions you introduce have a caller.
What's clear is that your PATCH 1/2 is not split enough. Just go through
it, you'll see code movement (a pain to review in patch format),
straigthforward renamings (easy to review as-is, but disturbs the
reviewer when mixed with something else) and actual new code.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-28 11:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-25 12:39 [WIP][Patch v2 0/2] Ref-filter: unification of 'tag -l', 'branch -l' and 'for-each-ref' Karthik Nayak
2015-05-25 12:45 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] for-each-ref: re-structure code for moving to 'ref-filter' Karthik Nayak
2015-05-25 17:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-25 17:59 ` Karthik Nayak
2015-05-25 19:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-05-26 6:58 ` Karthik Nayak
2015-05-26 15:49 ` Matthieu Moy
2015-05-28 7:08 ` Karthik Nayak
2015-05-28 11:26 ` Matthieu Moy [this message]
2015-05-25 12:45 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ref-filter: move code from 'for-each-ref' Karthik Nayak
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=vpq1ti1vt6p.fsf@anie.imag.fr \
--to=matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=karthik.188@gmail.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).