Re: [PATCH 2/2] built-in rebase: reinstate `checkout -q` behavior where appropriate

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

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.  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.

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.