Re: [PATCH 1/4] Improve message-id generation flow control for format-patch
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 08:31:08PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 43 quoted lines
> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
> > ---
> > builtin-log.c | 29 ++++++++++++++---------------
> > 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin-log.c b/builtin-log.c
> > index dcc9f81..1f74d66 100644
> > --- a/builtin-log.c
> > +++ b/builtin-log.c
> > @@ -576,16 +576,19 @@ static void get_patch_ids(struct rev_info *rev, struct patch_ids *ids, const cha
> > o2->flags = flags2;
> > }
> >
> > -static void gen_message_id(char *dest, unsigned int length, char *base)
> > +static void gen_message_id(struct rev_info *info, char *base)
> > {
> > const char *committer = git_committer_info(IDENT_WARN_ON_NO_NAME);
> > const char *email_start = strrchr(committer, '<');
> > const char *email_end = strrchr(committer, '>');
> > - if(!email_start || !email_end || email_start > email_end - 1)
> > + struct strbuf buf;
> > + if (!email_start || !email_end || email_start > email_end - 1)
> > die("Could not extract email from committer identity.");
> > - snprintf(dest, length, "%s.%lu.git.%.*s", base,
> > - (unsigned long) time(NULL),
> > - (int)(email_end - email_start - 1), email_start + 1);
> > + strbuf_init(&buf, 0);
> > + strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s.%lu.git.%.*s", base,
> > + (unsigned long) time(NULL),
> > + (int)(email_end - email_start - 1), email_start + 1);
> > + info->message_id = buf.buf;
>
> I wonder how the rule established by b315c5c (strbuf change: be
> sure ->buf is never ever NULL) and at the beginning of strbuf.h
> applies here. I think the current implementation of strbuf
> happens to allow this, and it is very handy. Perhaps the rule
> stated there should be loosened and allow copying the buf away
> when you know you have stuff in there (i.e. ->buf != slopbuf).
> Pierre, what do you think?
>
> What the patch does itself is much nicer than the original. Why wouldn't you just use strbuf_detach ? I mean replacing:
+ info->message_id = buf.buf;
with:
+ info->message_id = strbuf_detach(&buf, NULL);
isn't really hard to read, and has the nice side effect to prevent
errors that could happen in the future (like reusing buf and screwing
with info->message_id without noticing it). I'd rather stand on the safe
side here, it's more forward-compatible and idiot-proof[0].
[0] Not that I believe git contributors are idiots, but I firmly
believe in defensive programming when it doesn't impact
performances. And I don't believe it would here.--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>