On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:32:02AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > David Aguilar <dav...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Remove includes that have already been included by another header. > > Hmm, I am not sure if that is a good move, and suspect that it is > incompatible with what your 2/3 attempts to do, at least at the > philosophical level. > > I am guessing that your 2/3 wants to see > > gcc $header.h > > to be happy. One benefit from doing such a change is that sources > that want to use declaration made in $header.h have to include that > $header.h without having to worry about what other things the > implementation detail of $header.h needs. If function F or type T > is declared in header H, you include H and you are done. > > That is nice and tidy, but if that is the goal, then after making H > include its own dependency H1 that happen to declare functions F1, > F2 and types T1, T2 (which are necessary for H to be complete as > standalone), if the source that used to include both H and H1 > because it uses F and F1 should still explicitly include H1, no? > > For example, you dropped "diff.h" from builtin/add.c, but the > implementation of builtin/add.c needs access to diff_options struct, > which is in "diff.h", not whatever happened to include indirectly > that is already included by builtin/add.c. I do not think it is a > good idea, and more importantly I suspect that it is not consistent > with what you tried to do with your 2/3. > > But it is entirely possible I am misunderstanding the real > motivation behind these changes. The log message justifies why > removal is safe i.e. "have already been included indirectly", and > the title claims it is an improvement, but there is no explanation > why it is an improvement (which would have also explained the > motivation behind it), so it is a bit hard for me to guess.
The commit messages can certainly be improved. Patch 2/3 is really a question in patch form: Should we (a) forward-declare structs in headers that use pointers to those structs, or (b) full-on #include the headers that define those structs? Making "gcc $header.h" happy might be good but that wasn't the original motivation; approach (b) would satisfy that. This old (and maybe uneditable these days?) wiki page contains items that were the motivation for these patches: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Janitor - Some Git headers depend on other headers to compile cleanly, in this case it might be a good idea to include the needed headers in the header that needs them." - For example "revision.h" depends on "commit.h" and "diff.h", so "revision.h" should include them. - Of course after that it makes sense to clean up the "*.c" source files that include all these headers, to remove the headers that are no more needed there. Most importantly, though, is this part: - Contact the mail list to see how to proceed. ;-) Patch 3/3 is the item about cleaning up *.c files, but we may want to reformulate these items and take a different approach. Thoughts? -- David -- 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
