Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Felipe Contreras >>> wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> We should free objects before leaving. >> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras > > Micronit: perhaps you should move the "free obejcts before leaving" > (in do_pick_commit) to the subject instead of "trivial fix", which > adds no value to the patch. Perhaps. I prefer it this way because it's really a trivial fix not really worth much time thinking about it. So when somebody is browsing the history they can happily skip this one. The time save by not reading I think adds more value than any succinct description that would force each and every patch-reviewer/history-reader to read it. >>> >>> Some time from now, assume a ridiculus case when this function grows >>> more complex and somebody wonders what the "leave" label is for, "git >>> log --oneline -Slabel:" showing "trivial fix" would not help much. >> >> Fortunately that's not the main use-case, and for that single instance >> that probably will never happen, I think it's not too much to ask to >> this hypothetical developer to remove the --oneline, or copy-paste the >> SHA-1 and take a peek. He would probably need to do that anyway. > > And the "time saving by not reading" is also hypothetical. But I won't > continue this discussion. Is it? How much time does it take to read "trivial fix"? Half a second? How much time does it take copy-paste the SHA-1 of a --oneline log? Five seconds? So to break even we need ten readers that would only browse the history per each person that goes beyond the summary. To be safe let's do +- 100% and make it twenty readers. I think it's safe to assume there will be more than 20 readers skipping this commit without much though, perhaps a 100 or even more, and how many would need to take a closer look? I'd say 0, 1 might be possible, but to err on the side of caution let's say 2, hell, let's be generous and make it 3. We are still safe well beyond profit. But we have already wasted many more seconds than any of those guys would, so does it really matter? -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Felipe Contreras >> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > We should free objects before leaving. > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras Micronit: perhaps you should move the "free obejcts before leaving" (in do_pick_commit) to the subject instead of "trivial fix", which adds no value to the patch. >>> >>> Perhaps. I prefer it this way because it's really a trivial fix not >>> really worth much time thinking about it. So when somebody is browsing >>> the history they can happily skip this one. The time save by not >>> reading I think adds more value than any succinct description that >>> would force each and every patch-reviewer/history-reader to read it. >> >> Some time from now, assume a ridiculus case when this function grows >> more complex and somebody wonders what the "leave" label is for, "git >> log --oneline -Slabel:" showing "trivial fix" would not help much. > > Fortunately that's not the main use-case, and for that single instance > that probably will never happen, I think it's not too much to ask to > this hypothetical developer to remove the --oneline, or copy-paste the > SHA-1 and take a peek. He would probably need to do that anyway. And the "time saving by not reading" is also hypothetical. But I won't continue this discussion. -- Duy -- 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: >>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Felipe Contreras >>> wrote: We should free objects before leaving. Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras >>> >>> Micronit: perhaps you should move the "free obejcts before leaving" >>> (in do_pick_commit) to the subject instead of "trivial fix", which >>> adds no value to the patch. >> >> Perhaps. I prefer it this way because it's really a trivial fix not >> really worth much time thinking about it. So when somebody is browsing >> the history they can happily skip this one. The time save by not >> reading I think adds more value than any succinct description that >> would force each and every patch-reviewer/history-reader to read it. > > Some time from now, assume a ridiculus case when this function grows > more complex and somebody wonders what the "leave" label is for, "git > log --oneline -Slabel:" showing "trivial fix" would not help much. Fortunately that's not the main use-case, and for that single instance that probably will never happen, I think it's not too much to ask to this hypothetical developer to remove the --oneline, or copy-paste the SHA-1 and take a peek. He would probably need to do that anyway. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: >> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Felipe Contreras >> wrote: >>> We should free objects before leaving. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras >> >> Micronit: perhaps you should move the "free obejcts before leaving" >> (in do_pick_commit) to the subject instead of "trivial fix", which >> adds no value to the patch. > > Perhaps. I prefer it this way because it's really a trivial fix not > really worth much time thinking about it. So when somebody is browsing > the history they can happily skip this one. The time save by not > reading I think adds more value than any succinct description that > would force each and every patch-reviewer/history-reader to read it. Some time from now, assume a ridiculus case when this function grows more complex and somebody wonders what the "leave" label is for, "git log --oneline -Slabel:" showing "trivial fix" would not help much. -- Duy -- 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> We should free objects before leaving. >> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras > > Micronit: perhaps you should move the "free obejcts before leaving" > (in do_pick_commit) to the subject instead of "trivial fix", which > adds no value to the patch. Perhaps. I prefer it this way because it's really a trivial fix not really worth much time thinking about it. So when somebody is browsing the history they can happily skip this one. The time save by not reading I think adds more value than any succinct description that would force each and every patch-reviewer/history-reader to read it. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > We should free objects before leaving. > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras Micronit: perhaps you should move the "free obejcts before leaving" (in do_pick_commit) to the subject instead of "trivial fix", which adds no value to the patch. -- Duy -- 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 09:32:59PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Neil Horman writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52:18AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > >> We should free objects before leaving.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> > >> ---
> > >> sequencer.c | 7 +--
> > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> > >> index ab6f8a7..7eeae2f 100644
> > >> --- a/sequencer.c
> > >> +++ b/sequencer.c
> > >> @@ -626,12 +626,15 @@ static int do_pick_commit(struct commit *commit,
> > >> struct replay_opts *opts)
> > >> rerere(opts->allow_rerere_auto);
> > >> } else {
> > >> int allow = allow_empty(opts, commit);
> > >> -if (allow < 0)
> > >> -return allow;
> > >> +if (allow < 0) {
> > >> +res = allow;
> > >> +goto leave;
> > >> +}
> > >> if (!opts->no_commit)
> > >> res = run_git_commit(defmsg, opts, allow);
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> +leave:
> > >> free_message(&msg);
> > >> free(defmsg);
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> 1.8.3.rc3.312.g47657de
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Acked-by: Neil Horman
> >
> > This is better done without "goto" in general.
> >
> > The other patch 2/2/ adds one more "we need to exit from the middle
> > of the flow" and makes it look handier to add an exit label here,
> > but it would be even better to express the logic of that patch as a
> > normal cascade of if/else if/..., which is small enough and we do
> > not need the "leave:" label.
>
> Linux kernel developers would disagree. In C 'goto' is quite of then the only
> sane option, and you can see 'goto' used in the Linux kernel all over the
> place
> for that reason.
>
> In this particular case it also makes perfect sense.
>
I agree with Felipe here. Setting asside coding practice in other projects,
while its nice to follow coding convention in a project, a jump label just makes
more sense here. To not use it either requires you to duplicate the free
statements (undesireable), or to change the sense of theif clause here and nest
your if statements (makes for ugly reading).
> > It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it
> > is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin".
>
> Why? This patch is standalone and fixes an issue that is independent of the
> other patch. Why squash two patches that do *two* different things?
>
I agree here as well. This fixes a bug that has nothing to do with the other
patch, save for it being in the same C file. Fix them separately.
> Anyway, I'll happily drop this patch if you want this memory leak to remain.
> But then I'll do the same in the other patch.
>
> This mantra of avodiing 'goto' is not helping anybody.
>
> --
> Felipe Contreras
>
--
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
RE: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
> From: Joachim Schmitz [mailto:j...@schmitz-digital.de] > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:30 PM > To: 'Felipe Contreras' > Cc: 'git@vger.kernel.org' > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix > > And for the record: I agree with you that these 2 things should rather not be > in a single patch as they are completely unrelated. I take that back: your patches 'overlap' so the 2nd won't apply without the 1st Bye, Jojo -- 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
RE: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
> From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contre...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:24 PM > To: Joachim Schmitz > Cc: git@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Joachim Schmitz > wrote: > >> From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contre...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:52 PM > >> To: Joachim Schmitz > >> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix > >> > >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Joachim Schmitz > >> wrote: > >> > Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > >> >>> It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it > >> >>> is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin". > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Why? This patch is standalone and fixes an issue that is independent > >> >> of the other patch. Why squash two patches that do *two* different > >> >> things? > >> >> > >> >> Anyway, I'll happily drop this patch if you want this memory leak to > >> >> remain. But then I'll do the same in the other patch. > >> >> > >> >> This mantra of avodiing 'goto' is not helping anybody. > >> > > >> > > >> > adding 5 letters (to change the next "if" into an "else if") versus your > >> > addition of several lines and some 15 additional letters (ignoring the > >> > whitsspace) is IMHO enough to see what is better? > >> > >> This has nothing to do with what Junio said. > > > > Well, it has, but you had snipped it. But replied to the goto issue > > regardless > > I didn't snip anything, this is a different context. You did in your reply to me > >> This is better done without "goto" in general. > > He din't say: > __ > It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it > is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin", AND you > fix the goto issue. > __ > > You added that last part in your mind. Moreover, he didn't say goto > was an issue, he simply stated an opinion about some generality. I added nothing in my mind, I just copy/paste that statement and was commenting on that and only that. At least intended to. Whenever anybody added more else branches, that's the time to possible switch to the goto style. And for the record: I agree with you that these 2 things should rather not be in a single patch as they are completely unrelated. Bye, Jojo -- 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Joachim Schmitz wrote: >> From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contre...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:52 PM >> To: Joachim Schmitz >> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Joachim Schmitz >> wrote: >> > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> >> >> Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> >>> It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it >> >>> is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin". >> >> >> >> >> >> Why? This patch is standalone and fixes an issue that is independent >> >> of the other patch. Why squash two patches that do *two* different >> >> things? >> >> >> >> Anyway, I'll happily drop this patch if you want this memory leak to >> >> remain. But then I'll do the same in the other patch. >> >> >> >> This mantra of avodiing 'goto' is not helping anybody. >> > >> > >> > adding 5 letters (to change the next "if" into an "else if") versus your >> > addition of several lines and some 15 additional letters (ignoring the >> > whitsspace) is IMHO enough to see what is better? >> >> This has nothing to do with what Junio said. > > Well, it has, but you had snipped it. But replied to the goto issue regardless I didn't snip anything, this is a different context. >> This is better done without "goto" in general. He din't say: __ It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin", AND you fix the goto issue. __ You added that last part in your mind. Moreover, he didn't say goto was an issue, he simply stated an opinion about some generality. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
RE: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
> From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contre...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:52 PM > To: Joachim Schmitz > Cc: git@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Joachim Schmitz > wrote: > > Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> > >> Junio C Hamano wrote: > > >>> It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it > >>> is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin". > >> > >> > >> Why? This patch is standalone and fixes an issue that is independent > >> of the other patch. Why squash two patches that do *two* different > >> things? > >> > >> Anyway, I'll happily drop this patch if you want this memory leak to > >> remain. But then I'll do the same in the other patch. > >> > >> This mantra of avodiing 'goto' is not helping anybody. > > > > > > adding 5 letters (to change the next "if" into an "else if") versus your > > addition of several lines and some 15 additional letters (ignoring the > > whitsspace) is IMHO enough to see what is better? > > This has nothing to do with what Junio said. Well, it has, but you had snipped it. But replied to the goto issue regardless > This is better done without "goto" in general. Bye, Jojo -- 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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Joachim Schmitz
wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it
>>> is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin".
>>
>>
>> Why? This patch is standalone and fixes an issue that is independent
>> of the other patch. Why squash two patches that do *two* different
>> things?
>>
>> Anyway, I'll happily drop this patch if you want this memory leak to
>> remain. But then I'll do the same in the other patch.
>>
>> This mantra of avodiing 'goto' is not helping anybody.
>
>
> adding 5 letters (to change the next "if" into an "else if") versus your
> addition of several lines and some 15 additional letters (ignoring the
> whitsspace) is IMHO enough to see what is better?
This has nothing to do with what Junio said. Junio said it is better
to squash the two changes into one, which is not clearly better.
As for your suggestion, what happens the next time somebody needs to
add something else to this chunk of code? Another if, and then
another, and soon enough you end up with five levels of indentation,
and in some of those patches you have to change the indentation of
existing code.
If only there was much bigger and successful software project that had
hashed all these questions and came up with a code-style to last the
ages. Oh, but there is, it's called Linux, and the answer is to use
goto's.
If the code used a goto in the first place.. BAM:
--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c
-628,8 +628,10 static int
do_pick_commit(struct commit *commit, struct replay_opts *opts)
}
allow = allow_empty(opts, commit);
- if (allow < 0)
- return allow;
+ if (allow < 0) {
+ res = allow;
+ goto leave;
+ }
if (!opts->no_commit)
res = run_git_commit(defmsg, opts, allow);
And every time you need to add more code you just do it, and stop
worrying about increasing indentation, or re-indenting.
Problem solved.
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Neil Horman writes:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52:18AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
We should free objects before leaving.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
---
sequencer.c | 7 +--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
index ab6f8a7..7eeae2f 100644
--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c
@@ -626,12 +626,15 @@ static int do_pick_commit(struct commit
*commit, struct replay_opts *opts)
rerere(opts->allow_rerere_auto); } else {
int allow = allow_empty(opts, commit);
- if (allow < 0)
- return allow;
+ if (allow < 0) {
+ res = allow;
+ goto leave;
+ }
if (!opts->no_commit)
res = run_git_commit(defmsg, opts, allow);
}
+leave:
free_message(&msg);
free(defmsg);
--
1.8.3.rc3.312.g47657de
Acked-by: Neil Horman
This is better done without "goto" in general.
The other patch 2/2/ adds one more "we need to exit from the middle
of the flow" and makes it look handier to add an exit label here,
but it would be even better to express the logic of that patch as a
normal cascade of if/else if/..., which is small enough and we do
not need the "leave:" label.
Linux kernel developers would disagree. In C 'goto' is quite of then
the only sane option, and you can see 'goto' used in the Linux kernel
all over the place for that reason.
In this particular case it also makes perfect sense.
It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it
is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin".
Why? This patch is standalone and fixes an issue that is independent
of the other patch. Why squash two patches that do *two* different
things?
Anyway, I'll happily drop this patch if you want this memory leak to
remain. But then I'll do the same in the other patch.
This mantra of avodiing 'goto' is not helping anybody.
adding 5 letters (to change the next "if" into an "else if") versus your
addition of several lines and some 15 additional letters (ignoring the
whitsspace) is IMHO enough to see what is better?
bye, Jojo
--
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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Neil Horman writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52:18AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> We should free objects before leaving.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> >> ---
> >> sequencer.c | 7 +--
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> >> index ab6f8a7..7eeae2f 100644
> >> --- a/sequencer.c
> >> +++ b/sequencer.c
> >> @@ -626,12 +626,15 @@ static int do_pick_commit(struct commit *commit,
> >> struct replay_opts *opts)
> >>rerere(opts->allow_rerere_auto);
> >>} else {
> >>int allow = allow_empty(opts, commit);
> >> - if (allow < 0)
> >> - return allow;
> >> + if (allow < 0) {
> >> + res = allow;
> >> + goto leave;
> >> + }
> >>if (!opts->no_commit)
> >>res = run_git_commit(defmsg, opts, allow);
> >>}
> >>
> >> +leave:
> >>free_message(&msg);
> >>free(defmsg);
> >>
> >> --
> >> 1.8.3.rc3.312.g47657de
> >>
> >>
> > Acked-by: Neil Horman
>
> This is better done without "goto" in general.
>
> The other patch 2/2/ adds one more "we need to exit from the middle
> of the flow" and makes it look handier to add an exit label here,
> but it would be even better to express the logic of that patch as a
> normal cascade of if/else if/..., which is small enough and we do
> not need the "leave:" label.
Linux kernel developers would disagree. In C 'goto' is quite of then the only
sane option, and you can see 'goto' used in the Linux kernel all over the place
for that reason.
In this particular case it also makes perfect sense.
> It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it
> is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin".
Why? This patch is standalone and fixes an issue that is independent of the
other patch. Why squash two patches that do *two* different things?
Anyway, I'll happily drop this patch if you want this memory leak to remain.
But then I'll do the same in the other patch.
This mantra of avodiing 'goto' is not helping anybody.
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
Neil Horman writes:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52:18AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> We should free objects before leaving.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
>> ---
>> sequencer.c | 7 +--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
>> index ab6f8a7..7eeae2f 100644
>> --- a/sequencer.c
>> +++ b/sequencer.c
>> @@ -626,12 +626,15 @@ static int do_pick_commit(struct commit *commit,
>> struct replay_opts *opts)
>> rerere(opts->allow_rerere_auto);
>> } else {
>> int allow = allow_empty(opts, commit);
>> -if (allow < 0)
>> -return allow;
>> +if (allow < 0) {
>> +res = allow;
>> +goto leave;
>> +}
>> if (!opts->no_commit)
>> res = run_git_commit(defmsg, opts, allow);
>> }
>>
>> +leave:
>> free_message(&msg);
>> free(defmsg);
>>
>> --
>> 1.8.3.rc3.312.g47657de
>>
>>
> Acked-by: Neil Horman
This is better done without "goto" in general.
The other patch 2/2/ adds one more "we need to exit from the middle
of the flow" and makes it look handier to add an exit label here,
but it would be even better to express the logic of that patch as a
normal cascade of if/else if/..., which is small enough and we do
not need the "leave:" label.
It probably is better to fold this patch into the other one when it
is rerolled to correct the option name gotcha "on the tin".
Thanks.
--
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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: trivial fix
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52:18AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> We should free objects before leaving.
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> ---
> sequencer.c | 7 +--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> index ab6f8a7..7eeae2f 100644
> --- a/sequencer.c
> +++ b/sequencer.c
> @@ -626,12 +626,15 @@ static int do_pick_commit(struct commit *commit, struct
> replay_opts *opts)
> rerere(opts->allow_rerere_auto);
> } else {
> int allow = allow_empty(opts, commit);
> - if (allow < 0)
> - return allow;
> + if (allow < 0) {
> + res = allow;
> + goto leave;
> + }
> if (!opts->no_commit)
> res = run_git_commit(defmsg, opts, allow);
> }
>
> +leave:
> free_message(&msg);
> free(defmsg);
>
> --
> 1.8.3.rc3.312.g47657de
>
>
Acked-by: Neil Horman
--
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
