Jeff King <[email protected]> writes:
> It's a lot of patches, but hopefully they're all pretty straightforward
> to read.
Yes, quite a lot of changes. I didn't see anything questionable in
there.
As to the "patch-id" thing, I find the alternate one slightly easier
to read. Also, exactly because this is not a performance critical
codepath, it may be better if patch_id_add_string() filtered out
whitespaces; that would allow the source to express things in more
natural way, e.g.
patch_id_addf(&ctx, "new file mode");
patch_id_addf(&ctx, "%06o", p->two->mode);
patch_id_addf(&ctx, "--- /dev/null");
patch_id_addf(&ctx, "+++ b/%.*s", len2, p->two->path);
Or I may be going overboard by bringing "addf" into the mix X-<.
