Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:

> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> writes:
>> While going through the for-each-ref-pretty series that Duy and I were
>> developing, I noticed that this cleanup was independent and good
>> as-it-is.
>> So here it is.
> You always can first allocate a piece of memory and write into it
> instead of writing things out directly.  The patch shows it _can_ be
> done, but that is not a news.
> And such a change is hardly a "clean-up".  It just wastes more
> memory you do not have to waste, in order to do what you are doing.
> When there is a reason why you need an in-memory representation,
> this change starts to become the first step refactoring for an
> enhancement.

Having said all that, the patch texts all look OK, so I'll queue
them with updated log messages.  It was the usual me reacting to
unjustified value judgement made in log messages and cover letters.

It would save me a lot of work if people stopped doing that and
instead stuck to facts.  For example, between print_to_buf() and
print_to_stdout(), the former is *not* necessarily "nicer".  It is
more flexible but that flexibility comes with a price, and the
caller needs a demonstrative need for that flexibility to justify
the cost.

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