On 06/16/2014 10:29 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] branch.c: Replace `git_config` with
>> `git_config_get_string`
>
> Here and elsewhere: usually, no capital after :.
>
Noted.
> Tanay Abhra <tanay...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Original implementation uses a callback based approach which has some
>> deficiencies like a convoluted control flow and redundant variables.
>
> "deficiencies" might be a bit strong (the code did work).
>
Hehe, I did spell out what the "deficiencies" were, nevertheless will revise it
in
next iteration.
>> There are total 111 calls in total in all of git codebase. How should I send
>> the patches, alphabetically or otherwise?
>
> My advice would be: try as much as possible to split according to the
> complexity of the patch.
>
> As a reviewer, I find it rather easy to review a large number of trivial
> and similar changes, but I hate having to switch back to "wow, the
> author did something tricky, let's try to understand this" in the middle
> of a trivial series.
>
> (we had this discussion about `...` Vs $(...) and test -a Vs test ... &&
> series, which were essentially very trivial changes, but with subtle
> bugs introduced and hidden by the volume of trivial changes).
>
Noted.
>> branch.c | 25 +++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> Removing more lines than it adds. I like the patch already ;-).
>
>> diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c
>> index 660097b..257b1bf 100644
>> --- a/branch.c
>> +++ b/branch.c
> [...]
>> int read_branch_desc(struct strbuf *buf, const char *branch_name)
>> {
>> - struct branch_desc_cb cb;
>> + const char *value;
>> + struct branch_desc desc;
>> struct strbuf name = STRBUF_INIT;
>> strbuf_addf(&name, "branch.%s.description", branch_name);
>> - cb.config_name = name.buf;
>> - cb.value = NULL;
>> - if (git_config(read_branch_desc_cb, &cb) < 0) {
>> + desc.config_name = name.buf;
>> + desc.value = NULL;
>> + value = git_config_get_string(desc.config_name);
>> + git_config_string(&desc.value, desc.config_name, value);
>
> You're ignoring the return value of git_config_string, which is an error
> code. It shouldn't harm, because the code is non-zero iff desc.value is
> set to non-NULL, but you may want to write the code as
>
> if (git_config_string(...)) {
> strbuf_release(...);
> return -1;
> }
>
> In any case, the patch sounds good to me.
>
Yes, for clarity sake, will rewrite the section like that.
Thanks for the review.
--
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
