From: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, christian.couder@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] for-each-ref: re-structure code for moving to 'ref-filter'
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:49:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <vpqpp5nfiea.fsf@anie.imag.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqegm4bmtg.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 25 May 2015 10:15:39 -0700")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Yuck; I can see what you are doing but can you imitate what the more
> experienced people (e.g. peff, mhagger) do when restructuring
> existing code and do things in smaller increments?
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).
* Split code movement and other stuff. For example extraction of
match_name_as_path() would be trivial if made in its own patch.
I'd also make a separate patch "introduce the ref_list data-structure"
to introduce struct ref_list and basic helper functions (constructors,
mutators, destructors).
It will take time and may appear to be counter-productive at first, but
you'll get used to it, and you'll end up being actually more productive
this way (well, maybe not "you" but the set "you + reviewers").
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-26 15:50 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 [this message]
2015-05-28 7:08 ` Karthik Nayak
2015-05-28 11:26 ` Matthieu Moy
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=vpqpp5nfiea.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).