Re: [PATCH] blame.c: fix garbled error message

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 14, 2015, 20:49 UTC
Message-ID: <20150114204926.GA1155@peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr3uxb7kj.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:22:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Lukas Fleischer <git@cryptocrack.de> writes:
> 
> >>   [1/5]: git-compat-util: add xstrdup_or_null helper
> >>   [2/5]: builtin/apply.c: use xstrdup_or_null instead of null_strdup
> >>   [3/5]: builtin/commit.c: use xstrdup_or_null instead of envdup
> >>   [4/5]: use xstrdup_or_null to replace ternary conditionals
> >>   [5/5]: blame.c: fix garbled error message
> >> 
> >
> > Looks good to me! I am not sure whether those patches should be built on
> > top of (a fixed version of) my patch, though, which would make
> > backporting the fix to the maintenance branch straightforward. Junio?
> 
> We can queue these five on top of 1da1e07c (clean up name allocation
> in prepare_revision_walk, 2014-10-15), which changed the rule of the
> game to break this code, that only is in v2.2 and later.
> 
> And the result should merge just fine to 'maint'.

Are we in agreement then that the resulting code with the helper is actually easier to read? I think replacing the straight ?: lines is, but I am on the fence on whether:

  const char *x = some_fun(...);
  return xstrdup_or_null(x);

is better or worse than:

  return xstrdup_or_null(some_fun(....));

-Peff