Hi Junio,
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> From: Junio C Hamano
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 12:36:42 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] am: refactor read_author_script()
>
> [...]
Thank you so much for that! I will use that as a starting point to
refactor the two read_author_script() functions
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Two functions with the same name reading from the same format, even
> when they expect to produce the same result in different internal
> format, without even being aware of each other is a bad enough
> "regression" in maintainability of the code. One of them not even
>
Hi Junio,
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> >> > +static char **read_author_script(void)
> >> > +{
> >> > +struct strbuf script = STRBUF_INIT;
> >> > +int i, count = 0;
> >> > +char *p, *p2, **env;
> >> > +size_t env_siz
Johannes Schindelin writes:
>> > +static char **read_author_script(void)
>> > +{
>> > + struct strbuf script = STRBUF_INIT;
>> > + int i, count = 0;
>> > + char *p, *p2, **env;
>> > + size_t env_size;
>> > +
>> > + if (strbuf_read_file(&script, rebase_path_author_script(), 256) <= 0)
>> > +
Hi Junio,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > +/* We will introduce the 'interactive rebase' mode later */
> > +#define IS_REBASE_I() 0
>
> I do not see a point in naming this all caps.
Old habit. Macros are all-caps.
> The use site would be a lot m
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> +/* We will introduce the 'interactive rebase' mode later */
> +#define IS_REBASE_I() 0
I do not see a point in naming this all caps. The use site would be
a lot more pleasant to read when the reader does not have to care if
this is implemented as a preprocessor ma
6 matches
Mail list logo