Paul Tan <pyoka...@gmail.com> writes: > 3. I'm over-thinking this and you just want the "struct strbufs" in the > struct am_state to be switched to "char*"s?
Yes, everybody interacts with am_state, and these fields are supposed to be constant during the processing of each patch input message; they should be simple strings, not strbufs, to make sure if anybody _does_ muck with them in-place, that would be very visible. The helpers to initialize them are free to use strbuf API to prepare these simple string fields, of course. > (On a somewhat related thought, currently we do write_file() all over > the place, which is really ugly. I'm leaning heavily on introducing an > am_save() function, for "I don't care how it is done but just update the > contents of the am state directory so that it matches the contents of > the struct am_state". Sure; the scripted Porcelain may have done "echo here, echo there" instead of "concatenate into a $var and then 'echo $var' at end" as that is more natural way to program in that environment. You are doing this in C and "prepare the thing in-core and write it all at the point to snapshot" may well be the more natural way to program. As long as a process that stops in the middle does not leave on-disk state inconsistent, batching would be fine. For example, you may apply and commit two (or more) patches without updating the on-disk state as you do not see need to give control back to the user (i.e. they applied cleanly) and then write out the on-disk state with .next incremented by two (or more) before giving the control back could be a valid optimization (take this example with a grain of salt, though; I haven't thought too deeply about what should happen if you Ctrl-C the process in the middle). -- 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
