Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2016, #02; Mon, 11)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 12, 2016, 21:49 UTC
Message-ID: <20160112214909.GD2841@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtwmitz2a.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> >>  Rerolled.
> >>  Needs review.
> >
> > Actually, it waits for a re-roll ;-)
> 
> True.
> 
> I think strbuf_getline() that handles the payload as "text" without
> having _crlf() suffix is an ideal endgame in the longer term, but I
> do not think it is a good idea to do that as a flag-day change.  So
> I am inclined not to change the function names around that feature
> in this series.  Others can do the wholesale rename as a separate
> follow-up topic when the tree is quiescent.

Yeah, I think we would want to catch topics in flight. Should the end of this series then be to _remove_ strbuf_getline()? Callers should be using strbuf_getline_crlf() if they want text lines, and strbuf_getdelim() if they do not.

Topics in flight will need fixed up, but that's OK; the breakage (and the fix) will be obvious.

And then after a quiet period we can drop the "_crlf()" and have strbuf_getline() back.

-Peff