git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email>,
	Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>,
	Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sequencer: fix edit handling for cherry-pick and revert messages
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:47:44 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq7dloeawf.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2103301200020.52@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:13:33 +0200 (CEST)")

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

>> @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ static int run_sequencer(int argc, const char **argv, struct replay_opts *opts)
>>  				"--signoff", opts->signoff,
>>  				"--no-commit", opts->no_commit,
>>  				"-x", opts->record_origin,
>> -				"--edit", opts->edit,
>> +				"--edit", opts->edit == 1,
>
> Honestly, I'd prefer `> 0` here.

Unless somebody (including Elijah) is trying to soon introduce yet
another value to .edit member, I'd agree 100%.  If it is a tristate
(unspecified, no, yes), I think "is it positive" should be the way
to ask "does the user definitely wants it?", "is it zero" should be
the way to ask "does the user definitely declines it?" and "is it
non-negative" (and "is it negative") the way to ask "does the user
care (or not care)?".  Using that consistently is good.

>> +static int should_edit(struct replay_opts *opts) {
>> +	assert(opts->edit >= -1 && opts->edit <= 1);
>
> Do we really want to introduce more of these useless `assert()`s? I know
> that we stopped converting them to `BUG()`, but I really dislike
> introducing new ones: they have very little effect, being no-ops by
> default in most setups.

Yeah, in a new code in flux where programmers can easily make
errors, "if (...) BUG()" may not be a bad thing to add (but then we
may want to see if we can make the codepaths involved less error
prone), but I agree with your view that assert() is mostly useless.
A comment that explains the expectation and why that expectation is
there would be more useful.


>> +	if (opts->edit == -1)
>
> Maybe `< 0`, as we do elsewhere for "not specified"?

Yup.

>> +		/*
>> +		 * Note that we only handle the case of non-conflicted
>> +		 * commits; continue_single_pick() handles the conflicted
>> +		 * commits itself instead of calling this function.
>> +		 */
>> +		return (opts->action == REPLAY_REVERT && isatty(0)) ? 1 : 0;
>
> Apart from the extra parentheses, that makes sense to me.

I can take it either way (but personally I think this particular one
is easier to see as written---this is subjective).

> ...
> The rest looks good, and the comments are _really_ helpful.

Yup, I agree.

Thanks for a review.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-30 18:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-26  7:16 [PATCH] " Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2021-03-26 12:27 ` Philip Oakley
2021-03-26 15:12   ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-28  1:30     ` Junio C Hamano
2021-03-29  9:23 ` Phillip Wood
2021-03-29 20:52   ` Junio C Hamano
2021-03-29 21:25   ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-30  2:09 ` [PATCH v2] " Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2021-03-30 10:13   ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-03-30 18:47     ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2021-03-30 20:16       ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-31 17:36         ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-03-31 17:52           ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-31 18:01         ` Junio C Hamano
2021-04-01 16:31           ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-30 19:37     ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-31 13:48       ` unifying sequencer's options persisting, was " Johannes Schindelin
2021-04-02 11:28         ` Phillip Wood
2021-04-02 13:10           ` Phillip Wood
2021-04-02 21:01           ` Junio C Hamano
2021-04-02 22:18             ` Elijah Newren
2021-04-02 22:27               ` Junio C Hamano
2021-04-08  2:40                 ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-04-08 17:45                   ` Junio C Hamano
2021-04-08 19:58                   ` Christian Couder
2021-04-09 13:53                     ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-03-31  6:52   ` [PATCH v3] " Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2021-03-31 14:38     ` 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=xmqq7dloeawf.fsf@gitster.g \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
    --cc=newren@gmail.com \
    --cc=philipoakley@iee.email \
    --cc=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2] sequencer: fix edit handling for cherry-pick and revert messages' \
    /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

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this 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).