Re: [PATCH] commit.c:record_author_date() use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with()
The format of this email is wrong. The non-commit-message notes should
come between the --- line (- note, there are three minus signs here)
and the patch itself.
On 03/01/2014 08:48 PM, Tanay Abhra wrote:
Signed-off-by: Tanay Abhra tanay...@gmail.com
---
commit.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c
index 6bf4fe0..c954ecb 100644
--- a/commit.c
+++ b/commit.c
@@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ static void record_author_date(struct author_date_slab
*author_date,
buf;
buf = line_end + 1) {
line_end = strchrnul(buf, '\n');
- if (!starts_with(buf, author )) {
+ if (!skip_prefix(buf, author )) {
If this is the only change, there is not much point, is there? How does
this help? Perhaps there is some way to take advantage of the
difference between starts_with() and skip_prefix() to simplify the rest
of the function?
if (!line_end[0] || line_end[1] == '\n')
return; /* end of header */
continue;
--
1.7.9.5
Hello,
This is my patch for the GSoC microproject #10:
Rewrite commit.c:record_author_date() to use skip_prefix().
Are there other places in this file where skip_prefix() would be more
readable than starts_with()?
Since skip_prefix() and starts_with() implement the same functionality with
different
return values, they can be interchanged easily.
Other usage of starts_with() in the same file can be found with
$ grep -n starts_with commit.c
1116: else if (starts_with(line, gpg_sig_header)
1196: if (starts_with(buf, sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check + 1)) {
The rhetorical question that was part of this microproject was meant to
inspire you to actually *FIX* the other spots, at least if the change
makes sense.
I have a query,should I tackle a bug from the mailing lists or research about
the proposal
and present a rough draft?
My suggestion is that you follow up on this microproject until it is
perfect before worrying too much about the next step.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhag...@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
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] commit.c:record_author_date() use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with()
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
-if (!starts_with(buf, author )) {
+if (!skip_prefix(buf, author )) {
If this is the only change, there is not much point, is there? How does
this help? Perhaps there is some way to take advantage of the
difference between starts_with() and skip_prefix() to simplify the rest
of the function?
I admit I lost track, but wasn't there a discussion to use
starts_with/ends_with when appropriate (namely, the caller is
absolutely not interested in what the remainder of the string is
after skipping the prefix), moving away from skip_prefix()? Isn't
this change going in the wrong direction?
--
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] commit.c:record_author_date() use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with()
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
-if (!starts_with(buf, author )) {
+if (!skip_prefix(buf, author )) {
If this is the only change, there is not much point, is there? How does
this help? Perhaps there is some way to take advantage of the
difference between starts_with() and skip_prefix() to simplify the rest
of the function?
I admit I lost track, but wasn't there a discussion to use
starts_with/ends_with when appropriate (namely, the caller is
absolutely not interested in what the remainder of the string is
after skipping the prefix), moving away from skip_prefix()? Isn't
this change going in the wrong direction?
Yes, it would be going in the wrong direction if this was all there
was to it, but the particular GSoC microproject [1] which inspired
this (incomplete) submission expects that the potential student will
dig deeper and discover how skip_prefix() can be used to achieve
greater simplification in record_author_date() and in other places in
the same file.
[1]: https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/SoC-2014-Microprojects.md
--
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
[PATCH] commit.c:record_author_date() use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with()
Signed-off-by: Tanay Abhra tanay...@gmail.com
---
commit.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c
index 6bf4fe0..c954ecb 100644
--- a/commit.c
+++ b/commit.c
@@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ static void record_author_date(struct author_date_slab
*author_date,
buf;
buf = line_end + 1) {
line_end = strchrnul(buf, '\n');
- if (!starts_with(buf, author )) {
+ if (!skip_prefix(buf, author )) {
if (!line_end[0] || line_end[1] == '\n')
return; /* end of header */
continue;
--
1.7.9.5
Hello,
This is my patch for the GSoC microproject #10:
Rewrite commit.c:record_author_date() to use skip_prefix().
Are there other places in this file where skip_prefix() would be more
readable than starts_with()?
Since skip_prefix() and starts_with() implement the same functionality with
different
return values, they can be interchanged easily.
Other usage of starts_with() in the same file can be found with
$ grep -n starts_with commit.c
1116: else if (starts_with(line, gpg_sig_header)
1196: if (starts_with(buf, sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check + 1)) {
I have a query,should I tackle a bug from the mailing lists or research about
the proposal
and present a rough draft?
Cheers,
Tanay Abhra.
--
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
