On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
>> Adam Spiers <g...@adamspiers.org> writes:
>>> Adam Spiers (14):
>>>   Update directory listing API doc to match code
>>>   Improve documentation and comments regarding directory traversal API
>>>   Rename cryptic 'which' variable to more consistent name
>>>   Rename path_excluded() to is_path_excluded()
>>>   Rename excluded_from_list() to is_excluded_from_list()
>>>   Rename excluded() to is_excluded()
>>>   Refactor is_excluded_from_list()
>>>   Refactor is_excluded()
>>>   Refactor is_path_excluded()
>>>   For each exclude pattern, store information about where it came from
>>>   Refactor treat_gitlinks()
>>>   Extract some useful pathspec handling code from builtin/add.c into a
>>>     library
>>>   Provide free_directory() for reclaiming dir_struct memory
>>>   Add git-check-ignore sub-command
>> Please retitle these to have a short "prefix: " that names a
>> specific area the series intends to touch.  I retitled your other
>> series to share "test :" as their common prefix.
> Just to clarify, I think most of them can say "dir.c: ".

Sure, I can do that, but shouldn't this convention be documented in

> I saw quite a few decl-after-statement in new code.  Please fix
> them.

Again, I can do that no problem, but again this convention is
undocumented and I am not psychic ;-)  I see that a patch was provided
5 years ago to document this, but was apparently never pulled in:


It would save everybody's time if these things are documented, since
then they wouldn't create noise during the review process.

I also see in the same thread that a patch to add
-Wdeclaration-after-statement to CFLAGS was also offered but never
pulled in, presumably on the stated grounds that that option was
relatively recent 5 years ago.  But wouldn't it be trivial to do

    gcc -v --help 2>&1 | grep declaration-after-statement

at build-time?

I'm also curious to know why this convention exists.  Are people
really still compiling git with compilers which don't support C99?

> As to the "who owns x->src and when is it freed" question, it may
> make sense to give el a "filename" field (command line and other
> special cases would get whatever value you deem appropriate, like
> NULL or "<command line>"), have x->src point at that field when you
> queue many x's to the el in add_exc_from_file_to_list().  Then when
> you pop an element in the exclude_stack, you can free el->filename
> to plug a potential leak.
> Also I do not see why you need to have the strdup() in the caller of
> add_excludes_from_file_to_list().  If you need to keep it stable
> because you are copying it away in exclude or excludde_list,
> wouldn't it make more sense to do that at the beginning of the
> callee, i.e. add_excludes_from_file_to_list() function?

Thanks, I'll take a look at these suggestions tomorrow.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to